Slashdot Mirror


John Carmack Discusses 360's Edge, Considers DS

Via a Gamasutra post, John Carmack's comments on upcoming id choices. Game|Life has a few quick comments on Carmack's hope to bring Orcs and Elves to the DS. This would be id's first game on a Nintendo platform in some time. Likewise, he makes it clear that he considers the 360 the dev platform of choice due to the ease of development on the console. From the article: "the honest truth is that Microsoft dev tools are so much better than Sony's. We expect to keep in mind the issues of bringing this up on the PlayStation 3. But we're not going to do much until we're at the point where we need to bring it up to spec on the PlayStation 3. We'll probably do that two or three times during the major development schedule. It's not something we're going to try and keep in-step with us. None of my opinions have really changed on that. I think the decision to use an asymmetric CPU by Sony was a wrong one."

244 comments

  1. Re:Carmack? by stevo3232 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    He didn't make Daikatana. You're thinking John Romero.

    --
    s.clementmonkey@sympatico.ca, remove the 'monkey'.
  2. Re:Carmack? by jpardey · · Score: 0, Redundant

    John Carmack, thankfully, is not John Romero.

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  3. Re:Carmack? by Evangelion · · Score: 5, Funny


    Nope, Carmack was just responsible for Doom... Doom II... Quake... Quake III... Quake III... Doom III...

    You're after Romero's head. And not the one in map30.

  4. Re:Carmack? by BrainInAJar · · Score: 2, Funny

    that's John Romero you dumb twat

  5. Re:Carmack? by qbwiz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ITYM John Romero.

    --
    Ewige Blumenkraft.
  6. Ouch... by PurifyYourMind · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the decision to use an asymmetric CPU by Sony was a wrong one.

    Oooh,*burn*!

    1. Re:Ouch... by badenglishihave · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nobody says it like Carmack, that's for sure. The man has such a way with words =)

    2. Re:Ouch... by Saint_Waldo · · Score: 2, Funny
      GI: When you were talking about adding more resources into the parallel development, do you feel that goes against Microsoft's XNA platform? Microsoft's spiel was that you used to spend 80% on problems and 20% on creativity.

      Carmack: Yeah, that's all bull****.

      Oooh,*burn*!
  7. Well... by computertheque · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least no one can say that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's kind of hard to disprove that man's intellect when it comes to software development.

    1. Re:Well... by jonnythan · · Score: 0, Troll

      How so? He hasn't done anything impressive in *years*.

    2. Re:Well... by Rycross · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He makes impressive engines. I'd say when you're talking pure development, then what he says carries a lot of weight.

      I sure as hell wouldn't take his advice on game design though. He repeats the same tired formulas over and over. DOOM was cool in the 90's, but these days you gotta be a bit more creative.

    3. Re:Well... by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Armadillo's stuff is pretty cool. I guess that's a bit off-topic though.

    4. Re:Well... by computertheque · · Score: 0

      I'm definitely only talking about his engine work, not game design.

    5. Re:Well... by westlake · · Score: 1
      DOOM was cool in the 90's, but these days you gotta be a bit more creative.

      He admits as much in the interview. The sting is in what he has to say about Windows and the XBox 360. With not so much as bone tossed the way of the OSX and Linux PC gamer.

    6. Re:Well... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested in what you consider a "bit more creative"? One of the hundreds of army games? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Creative would be not making a military game with variation on weapons....

    7. Re:Well... by Broken+scope · · Score: 2, Informative

      Didn't quake 3 run in linux?

      --
      You mad
    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure that id's products are as advanced as they used to be. id was behind most of the pioneering work in graphics for FPS games. However, after Quake 3, it seems like they've fallen behind. From what information I can gather, hardly anyone is licensing the Doom 3 engine. In contrast, the Unreal and Source engines have a lot more licensees. This suggests that either a Doom 3 license is overpriced or it's in some way deficient compared to the other engines.

    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for the record I'm not a PS3 fan trying to discredit Carmack. I used to be an id fan, but I kind of burnt out on FPSs a few years ago and more or less quit playing them. I'm just trying to assess id's present state honestly.

    10. Re:Well... by Kurayamino-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Makes impressive engines" is a bit of an understatement. "Has been at the head of engine development since Commander Keen cought up with Mario tech-wise." is a bit closer to the mark. Though he's sharing the limelight with a lot more people these days like Epic, Valve and Crytek. You're right though, when Carmak speaks, they all listen to what he has to say.

      It really is a shame that the games tacked on these days tend to be glorified engine demos...

      --
      ...I got nothing.
    11. Re:Well... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell wouldn't take his advice on game design though. He repeats the same tired formulas over and over. DOOM was cool in the 90's, but these days you gotta be a bit more creative. But how much say does he have in the game design? I'm sure he has some say, but his chief responsibility is the engine, not the game.
    12. Re:Well... by SpeedyRich · · Score: 2, Informative

      Course. Quake 4, Doom3 and Unreal Tournament 2004 too.

      --
      ## NB: Comment here
    13. Re:Well... by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Have you seen tixel and pixel fly?

      Now that's impressive!

      However, the cell-qoute was not so...

      --
      This is blinging
    14. Re:Well... by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Quake 2, which run on our crappy hardware in the office!

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    15. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is the initial game that helps to sell the engine, and Q4 simply is not as good as HL2. (puts on flameproof suit).

      Then you have the lack of a 3D skybox.

    16. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's the old generation of develeopers. He is fixed in his skill set and most comfortable doing things the way he has always done them. Nothing wrong with that per se.

      However, a new generation of developers will pick up the ball and carry it farther with the Sony PS3. The Sony has way more potentional than the 360, but as of yet, the PS3 wizards have not revealed themselves. They are there, working as we speak. And someday one or two of them will be as familiar to us as Carmack is now.

    17. Re:Well... by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      "DOOM was cool in the 90's, but these days you gotta be a bit more creative."

      Apparently not seeing that his games are all still played today. Look at Zelda: TP. Get the mastersword, defeat 8 dungeons, kill Ganandorf, save Zelda and the world. Where have we seen this before?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    18. Re:Well... by indifferent+children · · Score: 3, Funny

      Neither Q4 nor HL2 can hold a candle to Duke Nukem Forever. It is simply, hands-down, the most amazing game that you are never going to see.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    19. Re:Well... by byteframe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I bet you I could kick his ass in Quake...

    20. Re:Well... by delire · · Score: 1

      Quake3, Quake4, RTCW and Doom3 all had/have native Linux clients. I don't know about OS X.

    21. Re:Well... by delire · · Score: 1
      It really is a shame that the games tacked on these days tend to be glorified engine demos...
      Their evident lack of interest in game-design seems to indicate that technology licensing is their primary business. In that case, yes, their games would merely be saleable tech-demos.

      That said, if you're after a deathmatch shooter, it doesn't get much better than id's gear.
    22. Re:Well... by Thansal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Zelda is a strange exeption. Some how all the games all feel the same, and look the ame on the surface, yet are still somehow very different and compelling to play. (if any one can explain it I would be very impressed).

      DOOM 3 and Quake 4 (though Q4 is a bit better in my mind) really just feel like rehashes of the same ol', same ol', just with much better graphics. Better things have been done in the FPS genre, and those 2 just have not caught up. Quake Wars looks like it will be the answer however (admitedly it isn't actualy beign developed by ID, I tihnk).

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    23. Re:Well... by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

      Yea - they have native OS X clients. Run quite nice too.

      --
      Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
    24. Re:Well... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Re Zelda:

      All plots are old and tired. Fantasy seldom has any sort of different plot conflict than Lord of the Rings...Man vs. Evil. But the execution is what separates LotR from "Wizards of the Coast" licensed D&D spinoff novels.

      Same is true with Zelda...The plot remains the same, but the details are always fresh and creative. It's the same with games like "Gears of War"...How tired is that formula? But the game is a great game!

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    25. Re:Well... by westlake · · Score: 1
      Quake3, Quake4, RTCW and Doom3 all had/have native Linux clients

      True enough. But the better tool set does influence your choice of platform and technology - and even a developer in Carmack's league has to make these choices.

    26. Re:Well... by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 1

      Not sure how much veto power Carmack had, but I'm pretty sure that the game designer responsible for putting id into its repetitive rut is John Romero. The lead designer of Doom, Doom II, and Quake.

    27. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      (if any one can explain it I would be very impressed).

      It is not so hard to explain. The story schema is the same in every game, but the game itself is different. This happens in almost every game, all of them are follow one of the possible story lines (i.e.: boy meets girl), Zelda follows (more or less) the Campbell's hero cycle. The stories share other points (names, the nature of tri-force, and some other details), but the development is always different. You can see this clearly when comparing Ocarina of Time with Wind Waker, same story schema, (very) different game.

    28. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the most amazing game that you are never going to see

      I'm not sure how amazing it can be, but I'm pretty sure that I'm NEVER going to see it.

    29. Re:Well... by try_anything · · Score: 1

      The PS3 wizards may be far better known that Carmack. If someone can come up with a superior set of concepts for asymmetrical, hardware-aware programming, plus maybe tools and a language to go with it, it will be a sea change in programming. It would be interesting to see if these new wizards are kids coming out of college or an industry job where they worked with languages and tools for distributed systems. But really, who knows where the ideas will come from.

      It will suck terribly if programming asymmetrical systems like the PS3 continues to be as hard in the future as it is now.

    30. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Doom (Doom 1 & 2, not 3) is still played. Check out, for example, http://www.zdaemon.org/. A DooM port converted to more modern netcode, but the oldschool DM and co-op gameplay is practically identical. (New stuff such as CTF is also available, but many people don't even play that.)

      So Doom is still around, and still presumably "cool". The only reason why "you gotta be a bit more creative" is if you want to sell new games to people instead of the old games that they already have, or could buy cheaply. And since the gameplay of the old ones is good enough to make people very happy, the only reason you can persuade them to buy a new game is putting your creativity into the engine, not the gameplay.

    31. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'd be interested in what you consider a "bit more creative"?

      Something that's not an FPS for starters.

    32. Re:Well... by try_anything · · Score: 1

      If it every gets released, it will be an awesome advertisement for the engine it uses.

      "Our engine turns vaporware into real products!"
      "So easy to use, even the Duke Nukem Forever team can finish a game!"

    33. Re:Well... by bluephone · · Score: 1

      Remember, by the time the crew is fleshing out the story part of the game, John Carmack has finished 90% of his work on that project, and is deep in R&D of his next one. He makes the engines and structure, the rest of the team does 95% of the fleshing out. You can't really hold him responsible for everything the rest of the company does. At best, he's only partially responsible, and the blame gets spread around.

      Of course, I still love all of the games, so I'm not actually complaining. For me, if it's an id game, I buy it, because I haven't not enjoyed one yet. It's like a guarantee for fun to me.

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    34. Re:Well... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell wouldn't take his advice on game design though. He repeats the same tired formulas over and over.

      To his credit, the artistic side of things was never his area of responsibility.

    35. Re:Well... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      The sting is in what he has to say about Windows and the XBox 360. With not so much as bone tossed the way of the OSX and Linux PC gamer.

      *Ahem*, so this isn't enough for you:

      Quake III Arena source code is free software; you can redistribute it
      and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
      published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License,
      or (at your option) any later version.
    36. Re:Well... by a++2+Bathtub+Larva · · Score: 1
      I thought Return to Castle Wolfenstein wasn't bad, but I have to agree with you about the recent id games being tired and repetitive. Quake 4 and Doom 3 were basically the same game, and the similarities to Half Life 2 were many. (Did they really need walkers?)

      I believe that Carmack is an amazing dev, however I don't think id really understands whats made Doom popular in the first place. For me at least it was never about good graphics or scariness, it was about staying alive versus huge amounts of monsters. With Doom 3 only displaying 3 mobs at any 1 time, I have lost my interest in id games. I guess good graphics can only go so far before we see the mirrors through the smoke.

    37. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Daikatana! Don't forget that!

      And obligatory comments about him making you his bitch. Can't forget that, either.

    38. Re:Well... by westlake · · Score: 1
      *Ahem*, so this isn't enough for you: Quake III Arena source code is free software

      Quake III Arena was released in 1999. The game engine licensed under the GPL in 2005. It is now 2007. The question isn't where Carmack has been, the question is where he is going.

  8. Quit your whining... by StikyPad · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think the decision to use an asymmetric CPU by Sony was a wrong one.

    This is just my perception/opinion, but it sounds more like Carmac is getting old and lazy than any fundamental flaw with Sony's choice in processor. What we need is a new generation of developers to embrace the domain of parallel processing so that it can begin to realize its potential. I'm tired of the foot dragging and bellyaching about how different/difficult it is to multithread. Companies such as the previously mentioned RapidMind and PeakStream have made significant advancements in making multithreading more accessible, and if developers would put more effort into thinking in parallel rather than complaining about a changing environment, we'd be a lot farther along than we are now.

    1. Re:Quit your whining... by CompSci101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you're wrong about id's dedication to writing good 3D engines for the hardware of the times, regardless of complexity. Quake3's engine, for instance, allowed for multithreaded rendering when nobody else was even considering multiple CPUs.

      It wasn't completely stable -- and I wonder how many people actually turned the feature on -- but it was multithreading *way* ahead of its time on the gaming front.

      C

      --
      The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
    2. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xbox 360 has 3 symmetric cores, which run 6 hardware threads. No one is avoiding multithreaded programming.

    3. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you RTFA you'll see that the problem isn't so much in getting stuff to multithread - he's simply stating the truth that multi-core is non-optimal compared to the megahertz war stuff that it replaced*.
      The real problem is all the potential weird interactions that anyone, down to the fresh intern programmer, can trigger without knowing it.

      *i.e. 1 proc with double the clock speed can do everything 2 procs can, with less overhead and easier programming. Assuming equal memory bandwidth etc.

    4. Re:Quit your whining... by BOFHelsinki · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised if The Carmack has already learnt to make use of 360's three CPUs via, you know, multithreading. His (hardware) complaint was about PS3's 1+7 mix of two types of processor. (Maybe 2 PPE + 4 SPE would have been more usable/useful?)

    5. Re:Quit your whining... by Osty · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if The Carmack has already learnt to make use of 360's three CPUs via, you know, multithreading. His (hardware) complaint was about PS3's 1+7 mix of two types of processor. (Maybe 2 PPE + 4 SPE would have been more usable/useful?)

      It's theCarmack, dammit! No space! And the Cell's PPE has two hardware threads like each 360 core. TheCarmack would just prefer there were more general-purpose threads and fewer task-specific threads (where the "task" is essentially floating-point calculation).

    6. Re:Quit your whining... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Carmack is working on space stuff now as a side project. He's hardly getting lazy, though perhaps he's bored with programming shooters.

      But I take his word seriously - if he says it was a mistake, it probably was in many respects knowing atypical programmers.

      It's not as if this opinion was not said before by others.

    7. Re:Quit your whining... by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The hardware designers at Sega probably thought much like the way you do. That's the idea behind the massive failure called Saturn. Keep in mind, Sega's arcade boards used to have multiple processors. If their coders could deal with that, why wouldn't everyone else?

      Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Saturn. Good developers could do amazing things with it -- Radiant Silvergun, Panzer Dragoon Saga, NiGHTS, Powerslave, Virtua Fighter 2, Astal, Guardian Heroes... but most chose to develop for the slightly less powerful and far more developer-friendly PlayStation.

      And why? Because it made sense. It's not just a matter of developers being lazy or unskilled; if it is too hard to develop for a system, that also means doing so will take longer and cost more.

    8. Re:Quit your whining... by seebs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trend towards and away from specialized processors comes and goes.

      I think Carmack's view of the PS3 is a lot more realistic than yours. He's talking from the perspective of someone who has to ship a product or his friends don't eat. You're talking about what would be nice if programmer time were free.

      FWIW, I have a PS3, which I am using to do Cell development. It really is very impressive... And it also really is a lot more work than a more traditional multicore system. The decision to specialize an extra time here reflects Sony's PS2 design (crappy CPU with two very impressive and non-interchangeable vector processors to make up for it), and I think it also reflects Sony's arrogance; they simply assume that, of course, people will be willing to spend twice as long developing software on their system to get a noticeable but not earth-shattering improvement in performance.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    9. Re:Quit your whining... by xero314 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You would have to read my post about software engineering vs. development to understand a bit more about where I am coming from. I don't like that Sony has changed architecture in every console release, this has been a detriment to what they can achieve, but now they have IBM on board so I doubt the Cell Architecture is going away anytime soon. For now it is harder to program and takes a little more time, but that will change, as it does with every new architecture. As more development tools are available the programming will become easier, as more libraries and engines become available it will become even easier. Once you start thinking parallel you actually see that it is easier than not as it allows better division of code and work. If the next generation of servers, consoles, and consumer electronics are powered by the Cell Processor, as IBM, Sony and Toshiba claim, then you will see the necessary tools and mind shifts happen at a very rapid pace.

      As a Software Engineer I grow more an more disgusted with the x86, and to a lesser extent Power, architecture every day. Ah if only I could go back to the CBM days.

    10. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quake3's engine, for instance, allowed for multithreaded rendering when nobody else was even considering multiple CPUs. Yeah.. but only on Carmack's own machine. I think he even admitted that the smp part of q3 is basically broken (only works on very few setups) and not usable at all.
      Also up until he started considering the 360 as a platform he always stated that he thinks that multi-threaded engines are not the way to go.

      Right now ID makes shitty (ok.. mediocre) games, is attached to even shittier movies and their current engine will most likely not be as successful as their previous engine(s) because this time they are actually competitors with superior engines around.
      The fact that ID (Carmack) is praising Microsoft, the 360 and their "tools" in those degrees worries me as a free software guy and I think after the Doom 3 engine era we'll not see another ID engine running on an "alternative" operating systems (they'll probably move exclusively [right now only on the 360] to Microsoft's DirectX) or that they release their engine under the GPL.

      Bad times. :/
    11. Re:Quit your whining... by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True, however that was many years ago, when Carmack still had some ambition and imagination. I'm not saying Doom III was bad, but...

      At any rate, it's trendy to bash the PS3 lately. It really is a leap in console capabilities (and I don't even like/buy/use consoles period), but all the negative comments about developers avoiding the PS3 are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem is people viewing it as a hurdle rather than an opportunity.

      The fact of the matter is that multi-threading is here to stay, and if developers ignore it on the PS3, they're only delaying the inevitable. It's a safe bet that the XBox 1080 (or whatever) will have multi cores, and of course the PC industry is full-steam ahead on that front. Granted, the architectures may be completely different, but the principles involved are the same.

      Oh well, I'm tired of listening to myself bitch about all the bitching. I guess we'll see what happens.

    12. Re:Quit your whining... by seebs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you quite follow the essence of the complaint.

      With the absolute best tools conceivable, even with tools that we don't even have the technology to build, Cell will still be harder to develop for than a more conventional processor.

      Yes, it's more powerful; probably a LOT more powerful. It's still mork work to get anything done.

      Your claim tht it will be "easier" as it allows "better division of code and work" is just plain nonsense. Any division of code and work I can do on a multi-core system, I can do on a single-core system, too. That division is already available to me. The extra work Cell imposes is that I have to divide it asymmetrically; I can't just partition the task in whatever chunks the task makes sense in, I have to partition a lot of it in terms of the very specific requirements of the SPEs.

      That work won't go away, even with perfect tools. It's harder, and it will always be harder.

      I think it's probably worth it for supercomputing. I'm less sure that it's worth it for consoles, because game development costs are a plague upon the industry, and making them worse won't help.

      Will it get easier than it is now? Yes, but the underlying fact that it is "harder to program and takes a little more time" won't. What might change is that, right now, it takes a lot more time; that might be plausibly reduced. But, in the end, making Cell just as easy as a multicore SMP system is in the same bin as lossless compression that is guaranteed to compress ALL possible inputs.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    13. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of those websites look very impressive. Both of those companies look like scams cooked up by a marketing department, kind of like the $15000 closed source C++ string libraries that came out before c++ was standardized. I put my stock in proven companies (and developers) that have released actual products that work, not a couple of slick websites and the bozo on slashdot who pushes them.

    14. Re:Quit your whining... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      You do know that "asymetric cpu ... was bad" doesn't mean that he hates multi CPUs. It means he thinks it's dumb to have multiple differently powered cpus.

    15. Re:Quit your whining... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once you start thinking parallel you actually see that it is easier than not as it allows better division of code and work.

      It's not just thinking in parallel, Cell requires that you think in terms of what the SPEs are good at, which is streaming data processing with no branches. The transition to parallel thinking is much easier with the Xbox360 because you can parallelize along any task boundary since each processor is the same and capable of the same general processor functions.

      As a Software Engineer I grow more an more disgusted with the x86, and to a lesser extent Power, architecture every day.

      Which has fuck-all to do with parallel programming. x86 actually has a memory consistency model that is friendlier to parallel programming than many other modern ISAs. If you aren't writing assembly I can't fathom why a software engineer would be bothered by x86.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Quit your whining... by ecuador_gr · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point.
      He isn't being lazy and doesn't complain about parallel threading. Granted, the 360 is less parallel at 3-cores, but his complain is about the asymmetric aspect of the PS3's CPU design. In the end the PS3 has just one powerful core that can run anything, the 360 has 3 of those (even at the same frequency and very similar design). What if your game needs to run a lot of processes involving branch predictions (say a massive AI)? The PS3 will actually limit your parallel threading as the SPE's cannot run such processes. In essence you have to write code that PS3 will be "confortable" with. No point arguing whether you can figure out a way to speed up AI on an SPE - it is just one possible example.

      Even worse, imagine everybody "does a Sony" and you have 3 consoles out with single-core + 7 SPE's each, but of course of different architecture, as it is usual. It will be a nightmare if the SPE's of each system are designed with different limitations. You would never be able to optimize for all systems with a similar code base.

      While I am not a fan of the guy, calling Carmack "lazy" or "old generation" does not really fit the current situation on planet Earth.

    17. Re:Quit your whining... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, however that was many years ago, when Carmack still had some ambition and imagination. I'm not saying Doom III was bad, but... ... but you're still going to imply that Carmack is a luddite who can't adopt to new technology. What-fucking-ever, he is still what he's always been -- a pusher of new technology, and a great determiner of what technology actually works in practice and what is theoretical pie-in-the-sky wishfull thinking. Just because he is no longer the only man on earth who is serious about pushing the envelope on 3D technology doesn't mean he has lost his ambition or imagination.

      The problem is people viewing it as a hurdle rather than an opportunity.

      It's a hurdle and an opportunity. Practical people see this, theorists don't. Hell, even IBM admitted that it was a hurdle for programmers in an architecture talk about Cell that I attended at UT.

      It's a safe bet that the XBox 1080 (or whatever) will have multi cores, and of course the PC industry is full-steam ahead on that front.

      Are you mental? The 360 is already multi-processor, and multi-core is just a performance optimization to reduce communication overhead between processors (while making DRAM access more expensive). It already requires multi-processor programming which Carmack is an early adopter of. You think he doesn't know how to write a multi-threaded application? Please. His point, and a very good one at that, is that it is harder to write multi-threaded code when some of your processors have drastically different capabilities than others. Like I said even IBM, the creator of Cell, agrees with this assesment, so it is nothing but bald-faced denial of reality to pretend otherwise.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:Quit your whining... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      SPEs aren't pipelined, so why do they need branch prediction? I'm confused.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    19. Re:Quit your whining... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 360 has a triple core CPU, you have to use multithreading on that as well. The difference is that Sony has one main core and seven helper cores which means you have pretty much single-threaded main code (not necessary but probably more efficient) that's starting many short-lived helper threads.

      Also MS was known for providing very good development tools for quite some time. They used those for earlier games, too. Doesn't mean they can't make them cross-platform.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:Quit your whining... by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True, however that was many years ago, when Carmack still had some ambition and imagination.

      Blame id's game designer for the game design, Carmack is a coder and making the game fun is not his department. He makes it run and easy to modify, the game designers make the gameplay work as intended after that.

      Doom 3 has a great engine but most of its capabilities aren't in plain sight. Someone made bots for Doom 3 and just by using the AAS (with the AAS data automatically calculated for the MP maps) they were quickly able to navigate levels better than many bots that were in development for years, no waypoints necessary.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    21. Re:Quit your whining... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      OK so I went and refreshed myself on the cell architecture and realized I was going about my argument the wrong way. There is effectively no difference between programming for the CBE and Programing for multiple PPC cores. I know you are going to say that I don't have a clue and that there is alot of difference. If you can design and develop for multi threading and vector processing (though you could skip that as the SPEs are capable of scalar processing as well) then you can develop for the Cell. True there will be some code better suited for the PPE than the SPEs and knowing how to break up the code to use each effectively will take time to learn, but once you start thinking like the CBE it will become second nature (Of course I still say this will be a moot point once the tools catch up since they, such as advance compilers, will determine what is best to run on each processor). The only complaints I have read, from people that have actually programmed for the Cell and aren't just bitching about it, is that the SPEs are in order processors with no branch prediction, etc, that go along with it, but this is place that the tools, again compilers, should be able to pick up the slack (and I should add not much different than the PPC cores used in the XBox 360 and Wii which are also in order).

      The only argument I will concede is a slight modification of what you said previously and that is that it may always be harder to get the absolute most out of a Cell like architecture as compared to the more common architectures of the day, but that is only because it has more potential. I think you will get comparable or better performance with no hit to development time. You could always use it like a PPC with multiple associated vector processors, just have people have been doing with Power/Altivec systems for years, and still get a performance increase in AI and Physics processing.

      Nicholas Blachford adds detail to what I am trying to say. And though this guy is no John Carmack, he actually details the process rather than just saying "I don't like it."

    22. Re:Quit your whining... by GradiusCVK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think maybe you misunderstand the issue here... it's not that multithreading is hard. In fact, the XBox 360 has three cores if I remember correctly... any game for the XBox 360 is multithreaded. The problem is that the Cell processor uses heterogeneous cores... that is, there is one main core which is basically a regular PowerPC core, as well as 8 additional cores (1 of which is disabled on the PS3) which are completely different, designed for number crunching on large amounts of data, and are radically different to program for. Having actually done a good bit of programming on this architecture, I find that it is not actually that difficult to get a program to take advantage of a reasonable amount of the processing bandwidth in the Cell processor... however, it is VERY difficult to utilize a larger amount of the available computing capability of the processor. Therefore, most developers have found it to be much easier to get X amount of performance out of the XBox 360 than it would be to get X amount out of the PS3, even though in theory the PS3 is capable of X+Y.

    23. Re:Quit your whining... by quakehead3 · · Score: 0

      but it sounds more like Carmac is getting old and lazy what about Busmac?!
    24. Re:Quit your whining... by sjelkjd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only is there the issue of 1 main core with 8 additional cores, the 8 additional cores don't have random access to main memory and are really only efficient at doing stream processing - they are tuned for vector operations. I'd agree that the GP(and GGGP) missed the point. The issue is not single core vs. multi-core - it's standard multi-core shared memory architecture vs. whack-ass-we-designed-it-ourselves-DSP-style-multi -core. Developers get the idea of multithreaded programming - it's hard, but they understand it. It gets much harder when you have to manually handle memory transfers for each of the threads to ensure they have the data they need to process.

    25. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's moaning about asymmetric CPU's (as in the cell architecture), rather than moaning about multi-core processors. The xbox 360 has 3 processors (the same), the PS3 has one "full" processor and several more specialised units.

    26. Re:Quit your whining... by seebs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, it sounds to me like you haven't DONE any Cell development.

      There's a huge difference between Cell and "PPC with vectors". It's called local store. Each SPE has 256KB of local storage. You have to have your code in there, and then stream data through. That means you have to do a fair amount of setup and partitioning specifically around that 256KB limit, which wouldn't apply on a multi-core PPC. That's a real issue, and you can't just paper it over for real projects.

      And yes, in theory, the tools should be able to hide some of that from you. That's why Carmack's comments about the tools are so damning. If there has ever been an architecture which desperately needs polished and mature tools, this is it.

      Also, I don't know where you get the idea that SPEs can do scalar code. They are 100% vector-only. The closest they can get is to emulate scalar code by ignoring the rest of a vector while manipulating only its first slot. That can be done, but it leaves you with a very slow processor spending a lot of its time masking things out and merging vectors together. (or, if you just omit those slots, and use only one slot out of each potential vector, your data takes much more space; 4x as much for 32-bit objects, 16x as much for bytes.)

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    27. Re:Quit your whining... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Cell isn't going to become a ubiquitous architecture and IBM isn't really going to care that it doesn't. Cell is going to end up in seriously big, seriously expensive corporate iron as well as, most likely, some news broadcaster gear to take Video Toaster type stuff to a whole new level. cell is not general purpose computing and it never will be.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    28. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a developer who works on PlayStation consoles, I must ask you...
      but most chose to develop for the slightly less powerful and far more developer-friendly PlayStation.
      What are you smoking?
    29. Re:Quit your whining... by seebs · · Score: 1

      Er, it is a hurdle.

      That it may be a wonderful opportunity, if you can overcome it, doesn't change the fact that the cost of developing a game for PS3 will be higher than the cost of developing a similar game on the 360. It may look a lot better, but so what? You have to sell enough copies to cover your costs.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    30. Re:Quit your whining... by xero314 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That means you have to do a fair amount of setup and partitioning specifically around that 256KB limit, which wouldn't apply on a multi-core PPC.
      IBM has already given one solution to this particular complexity in the form of an advanced compiler that implements software cache among other enhancements to neutralize your arguments. Pay close attention to "Scalar code on SIMD units" which supports your argument that the SPEs can not intrinsically handle scalar operations specifically (though with the right knowledge code can be written to handle them fine with minimal impact on memory), but for an intelligent compiler this is again a non-issue (all vector processors can handle scalar operations, it just might be a waste),with IBM's specific solution being what they call "auto-SIMDization"

      Basically what I am saying is if you have an specific example of where SPE programing differ from PPC programming that IBM or a third party has not already supplied a solution to then I would like to hear it. Otherwise I have yet to see any reason to acknowledge Carmack's apparently uneducated statement (which I'm starting to think was taken out of context and wasn't really meant to mean what it has been interpreted to mean). Not only that, if it's the tools he doesn't like then he ought to be the first one to write better tools since those would be useful, and he has the skills, while another 1st person shooter might not be so.

      And I will appease you by saying that I do not have a cell processor or emulator to test any of this out on, and am going on my knowledge of software engineering (in may different architectures) and the information I get form IBM and other Cell developers.
    31. Re:Quit your whining... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > At any rate, it's trendy to bash the PS3 lately. It really is a leap in console capabilities (and I don't even like/buy/use consoles period), but all the negative comments about developers avoiding the PS3 are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem is people viewing it as a hurdle rather than an opportunity.

      I'm a PS2 programmer; as "bad" as the PS2 is to program for, the PS3 is FAR worse; getting any sort of decent performance out of the PS2 involves utilizing each processor, and now our job is (at least) 7 times harder on the PS3?! Only a masochist would want to program on that thing. Give me ram, lots of it, and not fragmented into tiny little pieces. And few, but faster processors, then many, and slower. There are only so many tasks that can be parallized.

      Even on the XBox, MS's tools were miles ahead of Sony's. Most of Sony's PS2 tools haven't been updated in ~4 years, and you wonder why developers are avoiding the PS3?!

      And you have the gall to tell me and others it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, when people, like me, are saying the PS3 is "hard, dam hard" _based on past experience_, when you've never even programmed the PS2? Boy, are you naive!

      Maybe _you_ want the "opportunity" of staying up late chasing down DMA bugs, trying to figure out why the hell your streaming engine isn't loading some data fast enough (guess what -- streaming is even MORE troublesome 'cuz we have 4 times the memory to fill, but yet the DVD transfer rate has only increased by 2 on next-gen consoles), trying to debug VU code when one of your models isn't skinning properly, trying to figure out where you're going to fit all the game assets in memory, etc, but I've jumped through enough hurdles, that I don't want or need any more then necessary, because I have better things to do (such as implementing the game), then fighting broken, and limited hardware. The principles are indeed the same, but the devil is in the details, and frankly, we're getting tired of having to spend such insane amounts of time on them.

      And yes, I do actually love programming the PS2. The risk/reward ratio is very fulfulling. The XBox (1 or 360) even more so. But people aren't bitching when they are stating facts -- "Programming the PS3 is hard. Period." The risk/reward ratio is out of line compared to other consoles -- and we have to ask "Why? Why does it have to be so difficult?"

      Maybe Sony will wise up, and realize that "when you make it -easy- to develop on your system, people will -want- to, and be are more then happy to spend the time expirementing. It's all about minimizing the cycle: code new feature - compile - link - export assets - convert to native format. Make it easier on the developers and we will love you -- make it harder and we will hate it. It's not rocket science, only computer, and social science.

      Anyways, I've rambled on long enough.

      Cheers

    32. Re:Quit your whining... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      It really is a leap in console capabilities

      Not really no, it's a repeat of the past PC history: push more pixels on the screen, output more flops. Nothing innovative, and nothing truly "leaping", especially when you don't build the tools to allow your devs to work on massively parallel machines.

      It's a safe bet that the XBox 1080 (or whatever) will have multi cores

      Uh... You're aware that the XBox 360 already has 3 (symmetric) cores aren't you? You don't seem to be...

      Granted, the architectures may be completely different, but the principles involved are the same.

      As computer developers are currently discovering, this is not so and thinking about parallel processing has huge differences with thinking about sequential processing.

      Especially when just about every "popular" language is deeply broken as far as parallel processing goes.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    33. Re:Quit your whining... by masklinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you mental? The 360 is already multi-processor, and multi-core is just a performance optimization to reduce communication overhead between processors

      Actually, the 360 is multi-core, not multi-processor (it has a single Xenon CPU with 3 symmetrical PPC-based cores), and multi-core is more of a cost optimization and less of a performance one (AMD's communication overhead reduction between cores, as well as cache-sharing technologies, is an optimization only viable through the use of multi-core packages, but as Intel's old dual-core P4 showed, you can create a dual-core CPU by slapping two regular processors in a single package / on a single die without any such optimization)

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    34. Re:Quit your whining... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      more than 20 years ago. Anyone that has written assembly or machine code would realize that the majority of the work done by a processor is Integer or FP work (actually all binary but that is beside the point) so having 6+ high speed vector/matrix processors to work with is far more effective than 1+ single operand processors. Graphics are not the only things that benefit from vector calculation depends on the application... most of the time in normal desktop and server ops the processor does mostly bit shifting and doing application logic sequences with the occasional calculation in between. The really calculation heavy graphical stuff already is shifted mostly to coprocessors. Games and simulations and dsp stuff are different beast however, but 95% of all applications do not fall into this domain, they are mostly business apps, which idle 80% of the time doing garbage collecting and the rest of the time they have to serve as many people as possible doing heavy parallel loads while waiting on the data coming in from another program at the same time, with the occasional calculation in between.

    35. Re:Quit your whining... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Developers get the idea of multithreaded programming - it's hard, but they understand it.

      No they don't, they truly don't, most people don't being to truly "get" parallel processing and -- even worse -- no "popular" languages gets it either, all of the languages based on Dijkstra's concurrency model (shared memory and semaphores/locks) are fundamentally broken.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    36. Re:Quit your whining... by seebs · · Score: 1

      If you don't predict a branch, the SPE grinds to a halt for some ludicrous number of cycles while it fetches new instructions. The SPE has a huge decode buffer, and you need to warn it well in advance of where new instructions will be coming from if it's going to decode them in time. I don't know why you're saying they ren't pipelined, either; they are.

      See also:
      http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/librar y/pa-cellspu/

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    37. Re:Quit your whining... by seebs · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am well aware of the software cache, and auto-SIMDization. I was involved in getting the tutorials on those topics prepped last fall, and I've done a bunch of other writing on this. I am a big fan of Cell, and I spend more time than is probably healthy immersed in reading or writing about it.

      The software cache imposes a fair number of cycles of latency per access even when the datum in question is in the cache; it's even slower when the datum isn't in the cache. Is it useable? Certainly. However, it's going to give you a serious performance hit, especially when used heavily. You can't just use it and get full performance from the SPE without worrying about local store; you have to use it sparingly only for access to large chunks of data, while keeping the bulk of the data you're working on in local store all the time. It does not solve the problem; it mitigates it.

      The auto-SIMDization stuff does not make scalar code efficient. What that does is, in some cases, automatically convert scalar operations on arrays into vector operations on the same arrays. It doesn't solve the more general problem of operations that aren't being performed on whole arrays; those stay slow. what's impressive is that they handle the alignment problems involved in vectorizing, e.g., a[i] = b[i + 1] * c[i + 3];, not that they have magically cured the problem.

      So we're back to where we started. The cell development support and compiler can give you comparative ease of use, but you lose a lot of the performance potential of the processor. All those theoretical numbers you see are based on the assumption that you are doing 90% of your calculations with no latency; not waiting for DMA, not accessing a cache, and so on.

      So, really, you do have to do a lot of extra work to get the theoretical performance, or even very close to it. The software cache and other techniques mitigate this, so you can get enough performance from the SPEs to benefit from them somewhat without having to do anything exceptionally elaborate, but they don't give you the theoretical performance. If you want that performance, you have to do a lot of fiddly little management of, for instance, the tiny local store available on the SPEs. If you want to have that handled automatically, you take a very noticeable performance hit.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    38. Re:Quit your whining... by stubear · · Score: 1

      "It's a safe bet that the XBox 1080 (or whatever) will have multi cores, and of course the PC industry is full-steam ahead on that front. Granted, the architectures may be completely different, but the principles involved are the same."

      It's not just a safe bet, it's a sure thing, unless Microsoft decides to rip the multiple cores out of the current XBOX 360 design and go "old skool" or something. Oh, and the architectures are already completely different between the XBOX 360 and PS3 despite both consoles using the same PowerPC chips.

    39. Re:Quit your whining... by jonabbey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're the first developer I've heard indicate that programming the PS3 is harder than programming the PS2. With PS3, you at least have a fairly straight-forward PPE and the use of OpenGL for the graphics.. it's got to be easier to bring up a game with that than on PS2, right?

    40. Re:Quit your whining... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "you don't build the tools to allow your devs to work on massively parallel machines"

      Actually that's aiming rather low.

      I want a machine that looks like a single powerful machine, but can be made out of tons of different PCs, where if one PC dies, it doesn't really matter.

      Something like clustered VMS - but more generalized than Google's map reduce stuff.

      On Linux there's OpenSSI, but it's still got a long way to go - stuff like Postgresql won't work well on OpenSSI. If AMD or Intel or someone can help fix that then things could start to progress.

      --
    41. Re:Quit your whining... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      I want a machine that looks like a single powerful machine, but can be made out of tons of different PCs, where if one PC dies, it doesn't really matter. Something like clustered VMS - but more generalized than Google's map reduce stuff.

      Can't help you for general purpose stuff, but if you want a way to code applications on multiple machines, use Erlang, it's been built for this from ground up.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    42. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not APIs - a competent programmer can learn a new API, it's the brain-dead CPU architecture that actually affects the structure of the game as opposed to the words that your game is written in. Cell is a bad design for pretty much anything except possibly scientific codes (i.e. no interaction, easily decomposed loops etc. - this is my area of expertise and what I do in my day job - cell looks interesting for what I do!) and maybe video processing (for the same reasons). But if you don't utilise most or all of its power effectively, then you are left with the main core which gives you a machine that is much less powerful than the 360.

      Programming three cores in an SMP system (the 360) is a *lot* easier than programming a main core and lots of small ones which don't share memory (don't get me started on the PS3's memory architecture, I actually LOLed when I first read how it works). The ideal architecture to program has a single, very fast CPU. That's no longer possible, but having fewer is still easier for most codes.

      Unsurprisingly, the Wii, with only one processor is easiest of the new consoles to program for, and the PS3 is the hardest.

    43. Re:Quit your whining... by guardian-ct · · Score: 1

      PS3 has "games and simulations and dsp stuff" as significantly more than 5% of its apps. So, any improvement you might see in non-gaming related vector calculations will be swamped by the gaming-related use of the PS3.

    44. Re:Quit your whining... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      I think Carmack is dead on, the Microsoft design and processor choice in the Xbox 360 is way better. First of all multithreading is way easier to handle for most people than having to vectorize the algorithms and then push it through a parallel vector unit while the main processing core leaves a lot to be desired. Sony would have been better off with a good multcore cpu and an additional vectorization coprozessor for physics calculation, both pricewise as well as in design. Face it the cell unit is rather pointless in a console except for physics calculations but they sacrificed parallelism (which is very important for handling of npcs and general parallel event calculation) and raw processing power in the general purpose core for it.

    45. Re:Quit your whining... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      Uh... You're aware that the XBox 360 already has 3 (symmetric) cores aren't you? You don't seem to be...

      3 processors, each dual-core, I thought.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    46. Re:Quit your whining... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing this out, I already had the assumption coming mainly from server side programming. I came to similar conclusions after reading the specs. Using multiple threads and processes is somwhat not easy but a childs task compared to trying to pry problems apart and trying to push them through a multiple set of vector/dsp units with an underlying slow general purpose cpu. I had the feeling that sony tried to push their latest fad in, no matter that the usage of this cpu is somehwat limited, and it was developed for 2d processing mainly. Microsofts approach seemed to me much saner in this regard. After all it is easier to pry algorithms apart and have then run in multiple threads with a known well working algorithmic toolset then to try to push problems into the dsp/matrix domain which many times in nature are purely algorithmic. Most matrix like domains in game development seem to me in the area of graphical processing (already covered by the graphics chipset) and in the domain of phsyics calculations. Overall the cell seems to me like a hammer being applied to a drilling job, in the end you will get a hole, but the way is way more painful and the hole will be much uglier.

    47. Re:Quit your whining... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Sorry, replying to myself, but it's one chip, three cores, each core can do two threads. Or something.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    48. Re:Quit your whining... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      The main problem is, that the domains you can apply the vector units in the cell in gaming is limited, especially since the graphical stuff is already done by the graphics processor, overshadowed is that with the braindead general purpose core, which sits underneath which is more important for games. This is a highly specialized parallel number cruncher pushed into a domain where a parallel general purpose cpu would be better off. Sorry, to say it that way, but given the comments from the PS3 devs in here, I am not too far off with my assumption. The cell is an excellent processor for pure number crunching purposes, but definitely a lousy console general purpose cpu, especially given the fact that application programming time is the biggest burden on the console developers currently. Applying a hammer on a drilling job does not help there.

    49. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Microsoft design and processor choice in the Xbox 360 is way better

      I have entered into some bizzaro alternate Slashdot.

    50. Re:Quit your whining... by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      Especially when just about every "popular" language is deeply broken as far as parallel processing goes.

      Thank you -- At least someone knows something around here. :-)

    51. Re:Quit your whining... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I would have thought the cell would be easier than the EE. I know you know this but I want to state the reasons for my belief for others; while the Cell has 1 PPE (PowerPC core) and 7 active SPEs (Vector processing cores) and that is complicated, at least all the SPEs are identical, whereas in the EE you had a decoder core (MIPS-based, IIRC) and then two "vector processors" which as I understand it are each also MIPS cores, but they are themselves asymmetrical. I remember reading ars technica's articles on the structure of the EE and that while one core handles some types of data, the other handles other types, making it insanely difficult to keep both cores busy. It seems to me that even with more cores, it should be simpler to fill them because they are symmetrical (not counting the PPE, of course.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Quit your whining... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's OpenMOSIX, but AFAIK that only does process relocation, not thread relocation... But if you developed your games with a Unix model rather than a Windows model you'd be spawning more processes rather than more threads anyway :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:Quit your whining... by Itchyeyes · · Score: 1

      The 360 has a triple core CPU Actually, it has 3 dual core CPUs.
    54. Re:Quit your whining... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Actually, it gets "curiousier and curiousier"...

      Apple is now using x86 hardware (desktop), and Microsoft PPC (XBox 360)

      Complete switcheroo!?!

    55. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a developer who works on PlayStation consoles, I must ask you...
      but most chose to develop for the slightly less powerful and far more developer-friendly PlayStation.
      What are you smoking?
      I'm no developer, but what I've always heard is that the PlayStation was much easier to code for. Unlike the PlayStation 2, which was every bit as nasty as the Saturn (but developers were forced to cope because the insane hype gave it a bigger installed base, even though it was the worst machine of its generation).
    56. Re:Quit your whining... by ecuador_gr · · Score: 1

      I bet you weren't really confused, but had immediatelly figured out I meant to say "branching", right? ;)

    57. Re:Quit your whining... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's 1 processor, 3 cores, and every core handles 2 "physical" threads (as opposed to HyperThreading's virtual threads)

      So the Xenon handles 6 threads on 3 cores on 1 CPU.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    58. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 wrong

    59. Re:Quit your whining... by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      Stormwatch beat me to it, but I agree with him 100%. Go back and read some interviews with Suzuki talking about programming the multi core processing on the Saturn. When I read the specs for PS3 I had deja vu. I am one of the biggest Saturn fans out there, and I'm not trashing the PS3, but I can't help but be struck by the irony of the situation. The Playstation won by default over the Saturn (and most people agree that games that were on both systems were better on the Saturn, especially the Capcom games...) because it was sold at a huge loss by Sony (they could afford it) and was easier to program for (therefore had more games, 90% were drek, but definitely had more games) and the ease of copying games and modding the console on the PS.

      Sony should know first-hand that the "best" console doesn't always win the war.

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    60. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > His point, and a very good one at that, is that it is harder to write multi-threaded
      > code when some of your processors have drastically different capabilities than others.

      Kinda like todays PCs w/ multi-CPU, multi-GPU, physX,...
      Just more versatile.

    61. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... but all the negative comments about developers avoiding the PS3 are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy."

      Well, self-fulfilling prophecies were meant to happen, you know.

    62. Re:Quit your whining... by CreateWindowEx · · Score: 1
      The PS2 doesn't have a GPU, just a rasterizer (the GS). The "bigger" vector unit (VU1) is pretty much set up to be used as a conduit between system memory and the GS, so you end up using it as a GPU. So VU1 typically spends its time doing vertex processing, doing transformation, lighting, skinning, and clipping. Because you're writing microcode and handling the memory transfers yourself, it is much more laborious than writing vertex shaders for Xbox or PC, but you also have the flexibility to other things such as dynamic tesselation or higher-order surfaces. It's pretty easy to get good usage out of the VU1--if you've load-balanced your game properly, the VU1 will be crunching vertices for the entire frame, and then immediately start crunching more after the flip.

      However, VU0 is much more difficult to utilize--if you look at PA (performance analyzer) scans for many PS2 games, VU0 is idle most of the time. This is partly due to lazy programmers, but also just because the VU0 is very hard to utilize--it has less memory than VU1, and more importantly, unlike the VU1, cannot be easily made to run independently of the main CPU. Therefore, it's hard to use VU0 without lots of handholding by the EE core, and there aren't that many tasks that are well suited for the VU0.

      So any normal program will get good usage out of EE and VU1, and neglect VU0. Also, because VU1 is used for vertex processing, there is generally a small amount of code (only a few 'shaders') and a high 'loop count' per shader, which gives a lot of bang for the buck.

      On the PS3, however, there already exists a GPU--therefore the thing thats easy to do in parallel--vertex-processing--is already done by a different chip. That leaves everything else, which typically has less of an 'inner loop' form, which means the cost in programmer time becomes much higher. A large chunk of the other game code tends to be your typical branching, cache-smashing, non-math oriented crap that really wants a more PC-style CPU. It's certainly fun to think of ways of making code to run on an SPE, but it's probably not going to make your users as happy as improving AI, making cool effects, reducing bugs, etc.

      The PS2 certainly has a high learning curve do to the fact that you basically have to write driver-level software yourself, as opposed to the other consoles which shipped with graphics libraries, and it is a kooky architecture, but that's more of a 'one time' cost you bear on your first PS2 project, and only affects the low-level kernel of your game, which doesn't change as much. You spend some months pounding your head against a desk, but eventually it comes together and you don't have to revisit it that much. I think it is the fact that the 'rest' of the code (usually written by less than hardcore programmers, and for constantly shifting requirements) has to be radically reworked to exploit the PS3 is the big problem.

      I wonder if the PS3 will really force more developers to switch from internal engines to licensing commercial engines.

    63. Re:Quit your whining... by BillX · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say he's entirely averse to multicore developement on machines with crazy memory architectures. Didn't the blurb just mention releasing a game for the Nintendo DS?

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    64. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspected the same thing. For a PC programmer, John Carmack is legendary. When it comes to console game development, he doesn't have much experience to speak of. To say that programming for PS3 is too difficult, he probably is afraid of the challenges and opportunities offered by the new architecture, or thinking it is not worth the effort.

      Yes, it is complex and it may even require assembly programming for PPE and SPE, but that is expected if one wants to get the most out of a console system. The very reason why you have a fixed console hardware, rather than the PC architecture with the fastest/most expensive GFX card, is that programmers can optimise the codes.

      If all he wants is porting PC games with minimal effort, he should stick with XBox 360 and leave PS3 alone and stop whining.

    65. Re:Quit your whining... by a++2+Bathtub+Larva · · Score: 1
      While it may be trendy to bash the PS3 lately, I think it is really the gaming community lashing out a bit at what seems to be the "silicone implant" era of gaming. Yes we can hyperthread if we want to, however more power and better graphics don't necessarily make a game fun. I really am not sure if Sony gets this, being a "high end" electronics company.

      Everything about their press releases scream graphics as well. You certainly aren't going to fill a 40gb dvd with just AI and codebase. They are pushing the graphics angle so hard it almost seems like force feeding.

      One thing I do know being a game artist is that it is easier *for me* to put things out in .X than most other things. I don't even like MS but I gotta hand it to them, it's way easier (read: productive) to make games for it than it is for the PS3. (Compressed parallax mapping for DX shaders is a beautiful thing.) Game companies are here to make money, not push the envelope, and as such they won't adopt something that costs 2x as much dev time in order to charge $10 more for a game. It's not about hating on Sony, it's about making money. If Sony makes it hard for game companies to make money, well, whats the point?

      Just my 2 cents.

    66. Re:Quit your whining... by a++2+Bathtub+Larva · · Score: 1
      I have such mixed feelings about Doom3. I don't think there is a sinlge person in the gaming industry I respect more than John Carmack, I really have issues with how many mobs can be displayed at any one time. I don't know if it was a game limitation or an engine limitation, regardless I wasn't too thrilled with it. I recall thinking the same thing about Quake 4, though I think the limit was 4 mobs on that one. I'm sure the decision was made that the engine was to be as beefy as possible (and it sure does do a lot), but from my experience with Doom there was never more than 3 mobs at a time. That just isn't enough, especially considering hell has ripped open and demons are supposedly pouring through. (or whatever.)

      The lag on quake 4 multiplayer was enough for me to put it away forever, though I'm sure it has been improved by now. I have a 7800GTX and even at 800x600 with all options turned off it was so vastly different from Quake 3s quickness and responsiveness I still get misty eyed over it. In my opinion however I just doesn't get any sweeter than Quake 3 engine, to me it really feels like an extension of myself on how fast it reacts. Now if we can just get them to make the "unlagged" mod standard issue...

    67. Re:Quit your whining... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I really have issues with how many mobs can be displayed at any one time. I don't know if it was a game limitation or an engine limitation, regardless I wasn't too thrilled with it.

      I think it was a limitation of the hardware at the time, normalmapping creates a lot of load for the hardware and Doom 3 had to be able to run on less advanced systems (like the Radeon 8500 I had at the time, worked well enough although the framerate was pretty low) than what the engine was meant for (since games licensing the engine would take a year or two to come out). I don't think the market was really ready for normalmapping (along with unified lighting) at the time but the engine had to support it. Half-Life 2 used normalmaps only on very few surfaces and had precalculated lighting, that greatly reduced the load on the system. Later Doom 3 mods and levels used much more enemies at once than the standard game but in turn upped the hardware requirements by doing so.

      In my opinion however I just doesn't get any sweeter than Quake 3 engine, to me it really feels like an extension of myself on how fast it reacts.

      You'd feel different had you tried to make stuff for the engine, Doom 3 is just so much more advanced (as it should be since a lot of stuff happened between the releases of these two games).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    68. Re:Quit your whining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's only a single 3 core system. If it was 3 dual cores it wouldn't be getting out processed by a standard PC already.

    69. Re:Quit your whining... by Taulin · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between multi-threading, and having multi-processing. People think it is just as easy as assigning a thread to a processor, and away it goes. In reality it should be that easy, but it's not. Just take a gander at any multi-processing book and you will see that almost all multi-processor setups are logn for speed and effeciency. This means you get big boosts for the first couple of added processors, but the more you add, the more complexity gets included (sharing instructions, memory, etc), and the effeciency levels off. Now, since this Cell processor is new, perhaps IBM and Sony have pulled some miracle when it comes to multi-processing, and it makes this point moot, but it once again falls onto the programmer/os/and tools in how it creates the machine language.

    70. Re:Quit your whining... by SoopahMan · · Score: 1

      He's not complaining about having to use multithreading - Carmack's games are unoriginal but they're always technologically brilliant - disliking multithreading has nothing to do with it. Have a look at the Q3 source - which he's made freely available - and see all the threading going on. This is not laziness talking - this guy loves technology. The issue is the approach Sony and Microsoft take in their dev kits. This is the first Playstation to even have a graphics card or basic graphics engine built-in - the vector coprocessor in PS2 and the Cell processor in PS3 amount to "Here's a bunch of cpu power... good luck." Microsoft on the other hand has powerful dev tools that considered these are more than basic hardware - they're meant to run 3D games. They have a graphics engine and pipeline already in place that's tweakable in a million ways and code libraries to get you past all the trivia of game development. On the PS2 and now to a similar degree the PS3 the coder has to rewrite all these silly libraries themselves - and every single game company has to get past this trivia just to get a single game out the door.

      So of course he's tired of writing that trivia - his gripe is the PS3 is a big complicated piece of hardware more suited to a new web server than a game system, with practically nothing to get you started. And now that MS has their well-regarded IDE to compare to, Sony just looks behind the times.

      There will be companies coming along to fix this just like they did on PS2 - Renderware's cross-platform engine for example - but they aren't ready yet. And when they are they'll be closed source so Carmack can't tweak and play like an engine coder loves to do. The Stream engine and Geometry Shaders of the Xbox 360 give you nearly infinite number of engine tweak options on the other hand and they're available today.

      Basically he's lamenting having to write his own Stream engine in Cell instructions for the PS3. I would too.

      The Wii has a cute dev kit that doesn't hold a candle to the Stream engine, but no one expects it to - it's basically an Xbox/2004 gamer PC graphics engine, which has no mystery to it, nor high expectations.

    71. Re:Quit your whining... by PastaAnta · · Score: 1

      I have never done any console programming, but a lot of DSP programming. By studying various articles (@ Ars etc.) it seems like the Cell is very much like a multicore DSP processor.

      It seems to be a platform that will be like the wild Mustang and reward the only best programmers with unbeatable performance.

      I feel your pain and wish all you PS3 programmers happy hacking! ;-)

    72. Re:Quit your whining... by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Afraid? The man loves new powerful hardware. Maybe he just has a dose of reality to deal with.

      --
      You mad
  9. Re:odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately for Microsoft, logic in programming is not cultural. Logic is mathematical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

  10. Re:Carmack? by RDaneel2 · · Score: 1
    Sigh... didn't you even read the SA article you reference? The part (the first sentence, actually) with the 'John Romero's long anticipated, infamous "Daikatana"...'? The first two are widely regarded as being groundbreaking and classic, while the third may indeed not show up on the same lists - but then Daikatana was not a Carmack project.

    I know this is Slashdot, and not reading the FA is somewhat expected, but your own "evidence"? :)

  11. Re:odd by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    have you seen VB? It's totally English-US-American to the max. People in other countries are all like "wtf are they doing it this way for?"

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  12. Am I in bizarro world?! by Sark666 · · Score: 0

    He added, "I've been pulling for Microsoft..."

    I never thought I'd see a sentence start from Carmack with that.

    1. Re:Am I in bizarro world?! by Krakhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, considering all the amount of critism he had for Direct X many years ago.

      Speaking of which, can anyone point me to a link or other resource that talk about, or actually has the so-called debates between Carmack and Bill Gates of OpenGL and Direct X? Last time I tried Google with this, I couldn't find too much useful information.

    2. Re:Am I in bizarro world?! by everphilski · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It was before relase 5 of DirectX or so when he had his criticisms but by DirectX 8 Carmack was saying he had reconsidered and that DirectX was worth looking into (partially due to him not liking 'contrived use of P-buffers' in OpenGL, partially due to the increase of maturity in DirectX, from what I've seen)

      And yes, more recently he has gone on the books to advocate developing in DirectX to hit both Windows boxes and XBOX 360's.

    3. Re:Am I in bizarro world?! by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1

      He added, "I've been pulling for Microsoft..." - I never thought I'd see a sentence start from Carmack with that.

      Actually, he's been on Microsoft's side ever since Quake in 1996 or so. David Kushner's book, Masters of Doom talks just a little about their partnership. After Doom II's major success, Microsoft saw the chance to push id to support it's Windows platform. The original Quake was released for DOS, but later a WinQuake version was released that worked using everything from DirectX except Direct3D. Carmack has released for Windows first ever since.

      Carmack isn't necessarily tied to a specific platform or operating system, but he never was anti-Microsoft. He was more of a Free Software advocate than anything else.

    4. Re:Am I in bizarro world?! by ebichete · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you look back at archives of his .plan, he always liked Direct X. It was Direct 3D that he thought was juvenile. Over the years the Direct 3D programming model has moved very close to that which is used by OpenGL, so he may reconsider even that.

    5. Re:Am I in bizarro world?! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Because your prejudice against Microsoft means, in your mind at least, that they can never, ever do anything good..? Fantastic. The reason you're experiencing the cognitive dissonance is fanboyism :)

  13. Re:odd by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Most americans who see VB also say "wtf are they doing it this way for?".

  14. Re:odd by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    hahahahaha you're right :-P but we say it for a different reason

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  15. Re:Orcs and Elves by antic · · Score: 1

    Which was exactly the point originally being made - the guy knows what he's talking about when it comes to software development. The claim wasn't that he has a flawless history producing ground-breaking games...

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  16. Re:odd by mabinogi · · Score: 1

    Good luck writing a major application using nothing but Boolean logic.

    The rest of us use programming languages - and those languages have a syntax, and that syntax can certainly be affected by cultural factors.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  17. Re:odd by Gramie2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "their tools are more based on Asian design and logic"?

    What a bizarre concept. When I worked for a software company in Japan, the only way that culture intruded into software development (aside from an organizational structure that makes Dilbert's seem positively effective) was the fact that programmers who could used English manuals. Japanese manuals and other reference/instructional materials were so vague and information-poor that the language barrier was easier for my co-workers to overcome than reading materials in their native tongue!

    I will grant you that Asians (East Asians, at least) seem much more comfortable with interfaces that we find incredibly cluttered. But that's not programming as such.

  18. Re:odd by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And with a funny accent.

    --
    No reason to lie.
  19. ... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by seebs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=52467

    This thread has been one of the funniest things I've ever seen. All the PS3 fanboys are bashing Carmack for his comments about Cell, despite the fact that it's quite clear none of them program at all, let alone program on asymmetric CPUs.

    Hilarity ensues as people who would have been lauding Carmack to the skies if they'd seen only his gripes about the 360 CPU attempt to prove that he's totally irrelevant and afraid of learning about technology.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Stormie · · Score: 3, Funny
      All the PS3 fanboys are bashing Carmack for his comments about Cell, despite the fact that it's quite clear none of them program at all, let alone program on asymmetric CPUs.
      Don't worry, all the PS2 and PS3 programmers I've worked with have had nothing but contempt for Carmack for many years. Just another PC programmer who thinks he's hot stuff.
    2. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, Carmack is hot stuff. He makes hardware do things it was never intended to do, something which any console programmer should have the utmost respect for. A game developer not having respect for Carmack is like an inventor not having respect for da Vinci. Basically either jealousy or idiocy and in neither case healthy.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to understand which games it is that Carmack has worked on -- I see the HL episodes, UT2007, and a few other games attributed to him in that thread alone. Console gamers are truly a bizarre parallel realm.

    4. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering John Carmack basically pioneered the FPS genre, he is pretty hot stuff. The PS/3 fanboyz however, are seething in ignorance...

    5. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by blitzcat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sony fanboys : the new mac zealots. The ps3 is better because it _is_.

    6. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      yea all those PC programmers who have to actually follow good coding practices and have to consider differences in their customer's configurations, those arrogant bastards.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point - because if a PC programmer even screws up, there's nothing that can be done to correct the bug, whereas the lazy console programmers with their bad practices can just release a patch and expect the paying customers to download it.

      No, wait...

    8. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Bert64 · · Score: 0

      Not any more... Games are just programmed through APIs and layers of abstraction nowadays, you can't make them do anything the API wasn't meant to do... The only way to really do that, is to hit the hardware directly, like people used to do in the days of the C64 and Amiga, people made those machines do all kinds of things commodore never expected.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, that forum is way out there. Posted by the same person:

      Which is why he's a sack of crap and all of his games sucked thus far (except for Gears anyways) Doom 3 was uninspiried, Quake 4 was uninspired AND felt the same as Doom 3, Unreal 2k7 looks like it'll have a lot on it's hands going up against the 40-player Resistance

      I pay attention to the game industry and read up on everything I can.


      All the posters who seem like they know what they're talking about are simply ignored.
    10. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Why would you even post that link? It's credence as a valid criticism is next to nil. I shall, however, endulge you. Let's, if not just for the sake of our own amusement, compare and contrast these two starkly opposing views.

      John Carmack:
      • Has had multiple cover pages and articles alike dedicated to him and his gaming work; he is praised as being one of the most influential men in technology (specifically with respect to gaming) to date.
      • By his own admission and hobby projects, IS a rocket scientist.
      • Is, most importantly, responsible for multiple game engines, each of which having been applauded as innovative breakthroughs. His hacks and his trickery are still viewed with almost religious wonder by today's gaming industry developers.

      ps3forums.com posters:
      • Gaming industry heavyweight "Nunalho" from Lisbon, Portugal touts a Dragonball Z avatar and an extensive collection of Final Fantasy fanart. Wicked cool, but no amount of senzu beans or super saiyawhatevers is going to save you from the truth.
      • Poster "Gbeav" is quoted as having made the following criticism of Carmack: "He is a x86 programming guy. The industry has past him as he hasn't put on anything decent in a long time. This is like a mechanic complaining that carburetors are the best way to manage fuel flow." Well, Gbeav, I'm sure you're completely qualified and elected to speak on behalf of the whole gaming industry in declaring John having been "past"(sic) by. Additionally, your car analogy. The only way your little critical dit on John could have been worse would have been if you called him Hitler, gay, or both.
      • Ooops! Spoke too soon! Six-time Jeopardy champion "Tetsu" has that one covered, too! "If he wants to be Bill Gates' boyfriend, it's a free country, but between that and him producing six hour Half Life "episodes" for $20 or so, I think he knows what he can do with that.". I'm finding that this "ps3forums" reads more like a $1.99 tabloid and less like an Internet forum. Sheesh.
      • "Morganator" runs up and hits this grand slam: "It's funny that he says that about the PS3. I bet if we all boy-cot all his software for the PS3 then he'll be the one looking stupid. It seems to me that he's pro X-BOT anyways." No, John Carmack will be the one looking stupid when he, uh, isn't a renowned developer whose pastimes "casually" include rocket science. Oh, shoot, got you there too.
      • Seraphus Y needs to wake up and realise that garbage like (his post), "I couldn't agree more. John Carmack needs to wake up and realise that we've moved on from the i386 computers." is not only a ridiculously common platitude heard Internet-wide, but also mind-numbingly stupid.

      Shit, guys, draw your own conclusions here.
    11. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those so called "API"'s are quite vendor specific and very flexible.

      If you only programmed directly for the API, you would get something like Civ 4, a game with average graphics, but that needs a top graphics card.

    12. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by gamer4Life · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...but does Carmack have a 3-digit Slashdot ID?

    13. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by seebs · · Score: 1

      I posted it because I have come closer to peeing myself laughing reading the "rebuttals" to Carmack's position than I ever expected to do before I turned 70.

      I figured that Slashdot users would get a kick out of reading something that reminds us of just far we've come. I mean, compared to that thread, jokes about Natalie Portman and Hot Grits are practically computer science!

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    14. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by majortom1981 · · Score: 1

      Yeah maybe most console programmers but nintendos programmers are pretty good in that respect.

    15. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Console gamers are truly a bizarre parallel realm.

      Console fanboys, almost by definition, know fuck all about technology except what they read in specs sheets/marketing released by manufacturers.

      Imagine that fuckwit with a multi-core ninja PC with the fantastically expensive gfx card who likes to brag about his framerate in the latest over-hyped FPS, and can recite the specs from NVIDIAs website from memory... then dumb him down some more and remove even slight possibility that he's done any coding... and you have a console fanboy... who... if he's on the internet... he's also spent money on a PC.

      I can't imagine anything more pathetic.

    16. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Coucho · · Score: 1

      That website certainly was laughable. Having tried programming on a two-CPU computer, I have indeed felt it's wrath. Nevermind the fact that Carmack would have to program for 9 different CPUs each doing a different task. Cheers to you seebs. You seem to know what you're doing.

      --
      *pSig = NULL;
    17. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Fiznarp · · Score: 1

      No.. but I do.

    18. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      I hear the Woz actually has a negative integer Slashdot ID.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The revolution doesn't start until THEY say it does!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Thansal · · Score: 1

      No, it is a low 6 digit

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    21. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by seebs · · Score: 1

      Just to be picky: Only 7. One SPE is disabled to improve yield, one is permanently reserved for Sony's hypervisor.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    22. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Yes, thanks be to the programmers for all those bug-free console games.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    23. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      This thread has been one of the funniest things I've ever seen. All the PS3 fanboys are bashing Carmack for his comments about Cell, despite the fact that it's quite clear none of them program at all, let alone program on asymmetric CPUs.

      I went to the thread - its not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, there's actually some reasonable people on there.

      Example: "Why shouldn't devs bash hardware if they don't like developing for it? He's pointing out exactly the thing that many other people pointed out; Cell has a lot of theoretical power, but it requires a lot more developer time and effort to get it."

      Or this: "... it's more like a brilliant programmer with a long track record of effective optimization on a wide variety of targets observing that multi-core architectures are a lot harder to develop for than single-core (he mentioned that, too), and that asymmetric designs are even harder."

      Anwyays, this is really nothing new, he didn't like the PS2 either - just not a fan of Sony's approach. He's famously picky about his dev tools, not that there's anything wrong with that (NeXTstep, heh).

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    24. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Looks like there is a chink in his armour—one of his recent comments only got a 4 Interesting. Someone had better fix this quickly!

    25. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to think that Digg was the only popular website that made me feel less-depressed about how stupid the average Slashdot poster seems to be, but I think that you have single-handedly ripped the crown from Digg and bestowed it upon people that confuse John Carmack with every FPS dev team ever featured on X-Play.

    26. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I'm sure many excellent artists over the years have had contempt for da Vinci's work. Welcome to opinion.

      Even if most artists respect da Vinci as a reputable artist, it doesn't mean they'd follow in his footsteps or believe that his way was the right way to do things for their own art.

      In the same way, I think Carmack's a genius and I'd take anything he said about game programming and hardware and give it some serious thought before dismissing it, but you have to remember he has his own style and preferences and isn't necessarily "right" in his opinions for anyone but himself.

      The Xbox360 may in fact be the right platform for ID software, and the PS3 might be the right platform for someone else.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    27. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by miro+f · · Score: 1
      well considering he got +5 interesting for a comment that said

      Thank You.

      John Carmack


      then it's rather difficult to imagine what terrible things he must have said to only warrant a +4
      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    28. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was joking about questioning your reasons to post that, not cutting you down.

    29. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by seebs · · Score: 1

      I hoped you were, I just figured I'd clarify it on the off chance that there are readers here to whom the humor was too subtle. :)

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    30. Re:... PS3 fanboys dismiss Carmack as "moron". by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Civ4 especially annoys me...
      The 3D graphics bring nothing to the playability of the game, they're just fancy and superfluous eyecandy. But, their presence makes the game run rather slowly on my hardware. Instead, i just stick to freeciv. Tho some of the new playability features would be nice, i can't justify buying a new videocard.
      I like freeciv because it has low requirements, and will happily run alongside whatever else i might be doing on a business laptop (integrated video).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  20. Re:odd by poopdeville · · Score: 1

    The rest of us use programming languages - and those languages have a syntax, and that syntax can certainly be affected by cultural factors.

    Uh, so does Boolean logic. Ever read Frege's Begriffsschrift? I'm guessing "no". There are dozens of syntaxes for propositional and quantificational logic.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  21. Right by Trogre · · Score: 1

    And this would have nothing to do with a little visit by MS a couple of years ago, right?

    How exactly is the XBox 2 ("360") going to run OpenGL code, Carmacks API of choice?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Right by westlake · · Score: 1
      How exactly is the XBox 2 ("360") going to run OpenGL code, Carmacks API of choice?

      But is OGL still his first choice?

      He isn't convinced that it is time to make the jump to DX10, but DX9 seems be delivering pretty much everything he wants.

    2. Re:Right by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

      Maybe his choice has changed, like mine has. Years ago, OpenGL was the superior 3D API -- it was faster and easier to program for. OpenGL has been evolving very slowly, while Direct3D evolved quickly to take advantage of advances in video card technology. As well, the APIs have improved rapidly. Direct3D also has better docs. I'd say since DirectX 8, D3D has been the superior API. If only D3D were cross platform...

    3. Re:Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, Carmak is NOT using DX9. He's using an Xbox 360 - that's something completely different. Granted, the API looks a lot like Direct3D 9, but it's not actually compatible, and it exposes 100% of the hardware features directly with minimal (virtually zero) driver overhead, no stupid driver bugs, no emulation, no possibility of missing features...

      On a PC, OpenGL and Direct3D 9 are almost exactly equivalent. On a modern engine, 70% of the code is (or could be, if you put a little effort into the design) API-independent. Things like scene traversal, resource management, batching, loading and generating geometry and so on. In the API-specific part, you have a small piece of code that does useful work, and in an ideal world this is all you'd need. It simply manages resources for you, so you can (for example) tell it to load a mesh onto the video card and it does it, or give it a triangle mesh and tell it to draw it.

      The larger part is dealing will all kinds of stupid garbage. For example, in Direct3D 9 you can lose any data you have stored in VRAM at any time, so you have to detect this condition, re-load (or regenerate) all the data, and fix it before you can do any more rendering. It's not difficult, but it's more work. In OpenGL (and on games consoles) you do not need to do this. With OpenGL, you need to detect and load appropriate extensions, which you don't have to do as much in Direct3D 9 (you do have caps bits, which serve much the same function). So in the OpenGL code, you might need a couple of extra paths to deal with hardware / drivers that don't support specific extensions. You could have four separate paths for things like render-to-texture, or several different texture formats for floating point textures, you might have to deal with drivers that don't support S3TC compression, and so on. You've got to deal with the operating system, other software components you're using, and the whole thing's a huge mess.

      That entire part is unnecessary on a console. You have one piece of hardware, which maps directly to the available API, with 100% of all features exposed, including things that PC APIs deliberately prevent you from doing. It makes writing code so much simpler - you write some basic, low-level rendering code which interacts directly with the hardware, then get on with the useful task of writing the game engine. You never have to worry about whether or not you've hit a slow path (happens in OpenGL a lot) or a bug (happens in Direct3D a lot, and OpenGL if you're using Intel's rather crappy drivers) in the driver, because the drivers don't actually do anything more than queueing command packets for sumbission to the video hardware.

      The same applies to the Xbox, but also to the GameCube, the Wii, the Dreamcast, and to a lesser extent the PS2 (because you have to write all rendering code in VU assembly to do anything useful).

    4. Re:Right by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the Graphics card inside the 360 is an ATI card, and I think their support of DirectX is much better than their support for OpenGL. Although their drivers are always just horrible.

    5. Re:Right by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Actually, Carmack was dissing Windows Vista... So if you are coming up with "Microsoft bought out Carmack" conspiracy theories, they don't make much sense.

  22. Re:Carmack? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

    oremor nhoj em llik tsum uoy emag eht niw ot

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  23. OGL guru by QueePWNzor · · Score: 1

    I happen to know that he uses OpenGL. Quake still works on Linux, even. This is odd, because Nintendo and Sony use OGL, which he (to my knowledge) does extreamly well. People say DirectX (used on XboX too) is easier and looks better but have you seen Quake4? If he could port his shooters to the Wii, that'd be awesome. With that Linux stuff, I would have though that by now he and MS would hate each other...

    1. Re:OGL guru by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Carmack is far beyond a competant programmer, switching from one to the other would be like a writer switching from pencil to pen. an annoyance at worst.

      /begs to the gods of winter-een-mas that John Carmack does make something awesome for the Wii

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:OGL guru by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      "With that Linux stuff, I would have though that by now he and MS would hate each other..."

      You're ascribing the slashdot geek's viewpoint to that of a "normal" guy like Carmack. Carmack, like all "normal" humans, isn't interested in the OSS/anti-MS jihad, where "hate" would be involved.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    3. Re:OGL guru by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem with the PS3 is that while yes, you can use OGL to talk to the graphics hardware, the fact remains that the general purpose computing core (the PPE) in the system is seriously fucking slow. Like, last-generation-console slow. You have to use the Cell SPEs to get any kind of performance out of the system and that's where the whole thing becomes unnecessarily complex. Using less, symmetric cores is a much simpler model than using more cores and having two different types of core.

      iD games are developed on windows and ported to other platforms. OpenGL works fine on Windows (as long as you don't have an ATI card.) So why be upset? Carmack states that most of the cards in the office are nVidia, he obviously doesn't want to piss ATI off but doesn't care if he pisses anyone else off, which I find interesting...

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

      What the FUD? Care to prove how PPE is last-gen slow? The PPE is clocked at 3GHz and has as much functionality as G5 processor except out-of-order and complex branch prediction. The SPEs are there to get even more performance out of it not just to be complex.

      Of course it is simpler to program symmetric cores, but the potential performance gain is minimal as their vector units cannot be run independently. I find it amazing that Carmack is willing to program for GPUs with their limited usage other than shaders and some physics, but not for SPEs with more general purpose programming.

  24. Re:odd by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um... Computer hardware is made up of a number of components using digital circuits, which in turn use logic gates, which are a circuit representation of Boolean Logic.

    Besides, what do you think if() and while() do in programs? How about == and !=? <, <=, >, and >= are just a series of boolean comparisons.

    That isn't to say you can write an application using just boolean logic, as you'd need math in there at some point...

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  25. Doom on the Wii by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if they would do Doom for Wii so that I can really jump around and smash my wiimote into things it's never smashed into before.

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    1. Re:Doom on the Wii by holstein · · Score: 1

      Well, having tried Call Of Duty 3 for the Wii just yesterday, I can tell you that this kind of thing is possible right now.. :)

      Giving melee attack with a remote has something really weird though.

    2. Re:Doom on the Wii by Repton · · Score: 1

      To complete the immersion, they could ship a blindfold with the game ...

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    3. Re:Doom on the Wii by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Thus far, I have only smashed my wiimote into things in my forward firing arc. The wall I have behind my sofa has come through totally unscathed. Doom4 will fix THAT little oversight.

      "Quick, an imp has popped up behind you! Flick the wiimote over your shoulder and smite it!" "Its dark... and an imp has popped up behind you!" "You're all alone in the center of an open field in broad daylight... and an imp has popped up behind you!" Those wacky imps and their crazy ninja sneak-up-behind-you skills, its almost like they were teleported in by lazy level designers who have forgotten every way to legitimately frighten people.

  26. Re:Orcs and Elves by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    I'd be surprised if they even ask him when it comes to gameplay design. He's the lead programmer, not the game designer. Maybe that seems a bit strange since all other famous people in game development (well, after the NES) are the designers (Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Will Wright, ...) so people aren't used to the idea of a famous person not being in charge of "his" games.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  27. Re:Orcs and Elves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe Carmack was the major designer for Orc&Elves. I may be mistaken, but I think both Sid Meier and Will Wright started off PROGRAMMING their own games as well. And Miyamoto began as an artist. Nevertheless, I don't think being a great programmer disqualifies yourself as a game designer.

  28. Re:odd by sholden · · Score: 1
    That isn't to say you can write an application using just boolean logic, as you'd need math in there at some point...

    Nope. You can build the math out of boolean logic.
  29. Quit your multifunctioning.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It means he thinks it's dumb to have multiple differently powered cpus."

    Well then he's going to hate AMD's upcoming CPUs then.

  30. hahaha by snuf23 · · Score: 0, Troll

    "But I think most people realize that CmdrTaco is a homosexual. I mean, let's be honest."

    Nice one.

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
  31. Re:odd by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    I dont see anything which should have anything to do with asian logic in Sonys computer design, they just cram in the latest CPU suitable for their hdtv gear not thinking how good it is at general purpose computing or or not which is in fact really needed instead of getting in an overblown dsp, which just is usable for physics calculations...

  32. Quit your whining...Tote more bales. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(Of course I still say this will be a moot point once the tools catch up since they, such as advance compilers, will determine what is best to run on each processor)."

    Well as the failure of the Itanium showed. Fosting too much onto the compiler has a downside.

  33. "without further adieu" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that some kind of joke or yet another illiterate reporter ?

  34. Re:odd by mabinogi · · Score: 1

    I am well aware of what computer hardware is made from, and I never claimed it was impossible to write applications using nothing but boolean logic.

    If you feel you have to write a program using nothing but logic gates to prove a statement I never made wrong, go right ahead.
    But as I said in my original comment, the rest of us will use high level languages.

    BTW, if and while in themselves are not "boolean logic", they are jumps that rely on a boolean condition.
    Boolean logic has no concept of jumps, because it is not a programming language, it is a form of maths.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  35. Re:odd by antonyb · · Score: 1

    Ok, its been a few years since I studied this stuff, but thats surely not true, is it? You'd need more than pure boolean logic to handle arithmetic. You'd need at least bit-shifting?

  36. Re:odd by masklinn · · Score: 1

    VB, much like generic beer and America's Funniest Home Videos is an enabling technology for stupid people. It allows stupid people to do stupid things on scale that they couldn't accomplish on their own. While using VB does not make you a dumb programmer, being a dumb programmer does make VB your weapon of choice. That is unless you really don't know what the fuck you are doing, then its PHP all the way.

    VB is not about logic, or intelligence.

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  37. Vista & DX10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Carmack:
    There were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren't any for Vista. They're artificially doing that by tying DX10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS. It's a hardware-interface spec. It's an artificial thing that they're doing there. They're really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it.
    1. Re:Vista & DX10 by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yep. Vista doesn't really benefit users.

      If people actually kept insisting that Dell etc preload XP instead of Vista, then the WINE etc people would have a chance to take over the desktop from Windows.

      That's because Carmack et all will keep writing stuff for XP+DX9.

      Then all those Linux ppl will have time to make XP+DX9 compatible stuff. Once that happens, Microsof could end up like Intel trying to go Itanic, but everyone ignoring Intel and sticking to x86 because AMD provides a compatible path.

      As is most people won't know that they are like a frog being slowly boiled, and will just accept Vista even though it's bloated with all sorts of DRM crap in it - it actually makes their computer less powerful in so many ways.

      --
  38. Re:odd by ricotest · · Score: 1

    Nope, bit-shifting is also done with boolean logic. Or to put it another way, logic gates on the CPU.

  39. Re:odd by MilenCent · · Score: 0

    From what I remember from my old Computer Architecture class....

    On some level, all traditional computers are basically *made of* boolean logic components. Even things like floating-point math is, ultimately, broken down to boolean operations by the hardware, even if they are not represented that way explicitly in the program or even the assembly code.

  40. Re:odd by MilenCent · · Score: 0

    BTW, if and while in themselves are not "boolean logic", they are jumps that rely on a boolean condition.
    Boolean logic has no concept of jumps, because it is not a programming language, it is a form of maths.


    1. Computer programming is a branch of math.

    2. Perhaps more obviously, microprocessors handle reading the string of instructions laid out sequentially in memory by maintaining a Program Counter register, which is used an index into memory in order to fetch opcodes, operands, and other data. When an instruction is finished, it adds its length, in bytes, to the counter so it can find the next instruction. Jump instructions simply add their own value to that register. And addition, in this case, is carried out using boolean logic.

  41. Some Open Questions by lstellar · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there some similar initial gripe about the PS2 architecture? I am not so privy myself to the details (so I actually am wondering), but I seem to remember there beeing some of the same types of comments about the PS2 hardware that, while maybe rightly so, seemed to be overcome. Also, is it plausible that it takes time, and that maybe the PS3 came out too soon? (Or that dev kits weren't in the dev's hands soon enough? Oh wait... thats a fact.) So maybe as the kits are out and people start figuring it all out, and the ceiling rises, we get to see what the hardware can really do? I own a 360 and am impressed by it but I cannot help but be curious as to what that sheer power in the PS3 can do, and can't help but think its a matter of time before uber programmers a la Carmack start to warm up to it. Thoughts?

    --
    art is science made clear. -cocteau
    1. Re:Some Open Questions by HappySqurriel · · Score: 1

      IIRC there were three main problems with the PS2 to start with, the Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer were poorly documented, the tools Sony provided were inadequate, and the system had several bottlenecks. Early in the life of the PS2 developers were blindly programming on the PS2 without a real understanding of the system, and when they were getting awful performance they didn't even have tools which allowed their code to be profiled so they didn't know why their performance was so bad. The result was that middleware developers started providing tool packages with PS2 support (which contained most of the tools and documentation Sony should have had when they released their first dev-kits) and developers who had 'survived' initial development started sharing what they learned with other developers.

      The fact that the problem was mostly about information and tools (rather than it being a serious architecture problem) meant that developers could rapidly adapt to the system when provided the proper tools and documentation; look at some Madden Screenshots to see how much improvement there was

      Madden 2001
      Madden 2002
      Madden 2003

      Now, I could be wrong, but from my understanding Carmack is implying that the PS3 has architecture problem which will not (easily) be fixed by middleware or developer experience; what this (could) mean is that the majority of developers will not be able to get decent performance out of the PS3.

  42. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    256KB of local storage should be enough for anyone...

  43. Re:odd by redragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think its more of a total pipeline issue. When you look at software development tools coming from a largely US based company (MS for example) you've got a defined pipeline for development process. You've got IDE project templates. You've got command line tools that you can batch process files on as part of your build process. It's just more integrated. Looking at the solutions that come from Sony or Nintendo (though Nintendo is way better at this than Sony) you tend to get a loose collection of tools that aren't really integrated. This means you have to create all of the glue in-between each layer. That takes time and engineering effort. Sometimes this means greater flexibility, but again, it's all about how much time do you want to spend for your flexibility?

    Honestly, developers don't want to re-create the wheel each time for their build processes, but these kinds of things end up forcing that on them. The first chance they have to jettison it, they're going to.

    --
    - Sighuh?
  44. Re:odd by arkanes · · Score: 1
    1) Only in the same sense that engineering is a branch of physics.

    . 2) Boolean logic is a system. It has certain, limited, capabilities which do not include anything like the concept of jumps. You can build other systems, that do include jumps, out of boolean logic but that still doesn't mean that if and while are boolean constructs. They aren't.

  45. Who the hell modded that interesting? by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

    most chose to develop for the slightly less powerful and far more developer-friendly PlayStation.

    That is utter bullshit. The saturn was much better at 2D whereas the PSone totally trounced it in 3D. And 95% of the games were 3D.

    1. Re:Who the hell modded that interesting? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      most chose to develop for the slightly less powerful and far more developer-friendly PlayStation.
      That is utter bullshit. The saturn was much better at 2D whereas the PSone totally trounced it in 3D. And 95% of the games were 3D.

      My understanding is that the only area in which the Playstation is actually superior is that the Saturn lacks hardware support for 3d transparency. The couple of games that implemented it did it by software rendering the transparent objects using the second CPU, meaning that the full power of the system could no longer be exploited for other calculations. For titles where you don't need transparency, the Saturn has approximately twice the power of the Playstation, at least on paper (2xSH2 compared to 1xR3000, pretty comparable processors and at similar clock rates.)

      The Saturn also has 1.5MB more total RAM in the system (4MB as opposed to 2.5MB) and it is nice to have that kind of headroom.

      In the end though, I am not a game developer - but the specs and benchmarks seem to support what I'm saying.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. Re:What's happened to us... by HappySqurriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It just pains me to see possible innovation being killed because it's difficult!!! Is the PS2 tough to develop for, heck yes...PS3...even harder...remember when this was a good thing? The 360 is great, easy, straight forward and BORING!!!!!! Don't get me wrong, I like writing code for the thing, because it makes my job darn easy and I pretty much know what I am going to get on the back end.

    You're an idiot!!!

    I developed games for years before I 'burnt out' on the deadlines and schedule ...

    The fact is no one wants to program for hardware that is 'interesting and challenging' they want to produce software which is 'interesting and challenging'. It is very difficult to produce an advanced 3d engine on a piece of hardware when you're fighting for adequate performance and as you add complexity you're constantly fighting with the hardware to get stable performance.

    Essentially, an architecture which is 'difficult' to program for make creating high performance applications like building a sand castle in the rain.

  47. Ease of development is a market win by kabdib · · Score: 1

    You can probably get away with an "oddball" console architecture as long as the development pain is swamped by the reward in the market. When I was writing games (years ago) I used to say, "No one cares how much the developers suffer making a title." And it's true, to a point.

    That point is reached when your multi-million-dollar budget is being blown up by a system that is quite, quite difficult to extract performance from. Schedule slips cost money, they always have, but now the slips are *real* money.

    For what gain? If the oddball architecture isn't dramatically different from the non-oddball competitors', the oddball one loses out.

    I look at the SMP on the 360 and think, "Cool, I can do that." I look at the DMA-driven dwarves and busted-up memory heirarchy of the Cell and think, "Thank God I don't have to program that thing." If you care to throw yourself into that particular meat-grinder then I wish you all the best, you can *have* my lunch there, life is too short to burn yourself out on a broken architecture for what appears to be very little real gain.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
    1. Re:Ease of development is a market win by blueZhift · · Score: 1

      It is interesting to note here that one of the original Playstation's selling points was the relative ease of development for the console. This was especially true compared to Sega's Saturn which with the sudden addition of another CPU, was infamously difficult to code for. Sadly, with each following generation of the Playstation, Sony has gotten further away from an easy to develop for platform and played right into the hands of Microsoft, a software company famous for relatively easy to use development tools. And I've heard that Nintendo's Wii is not too hard to develop for either, especially for those with GameCube experience. Say, isn't Nintendo of America located in Redmond WA too?

  48. Same from developers I know by DrDitto · · Score: 1

    Game developers I know say the same thing. In fact they go further in claiming that the PS3 has serious GPU issues causing them to treat the PS3 inferior to the Xbox360 when it comes to programming for the lowest common denominator.

    1. Re:Same from developers I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they are PC programmers who just re-compiled the codes?

    2. Re:Same from developers I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unreal's engine, used by Gears of War, performs something like 30% slower on the PS3. Most game developers don't write their own engines. Yes, it could be the fault of Epic Games, but from what I hear, much of the performance loss comes from GPU problems.

  49. YES, I REMEMBER!!! by LKM · · Score: 1
    Is the PS2 tough to develop for, heck yes...PS3...even harder...remember when this was a good thing?

    Yeah, yeah, I truly do remember! When was that again... Oh, yeah, it was, uhm... never!

    Why in the world would it be a good thing that the PS3 is hard to program?

    1. Re:YES, I REMEMBER!!! by Icepole4 · · Score: 1

      I think what anonymous is getting at is remember when once a developer saw the capabilities of a new piece of tech they drooled over the possibilities rather than bitch about how much of a hassle it would be to develop for. The dreamcast was a prime example. It was tough to develop for but if you put the time in you could pull some great stuff out of it. I'm not a programmer but from a 10,000 foot level the cell looks exciting, but hey I don't have to program for it.

  50. Re:odd by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

    You can represent anything a computer can do using true and false. It'll just be extremely time consuming and error prone.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  51. Re:What's happened to us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The fact is no one wants to program for hardware that is 'interesting and challenging' they want to produce software which is 'interesting and challenging'."

    I want both. I want hardware that challenges me and helps me expand my abilities in hopes that the software I produce will even more interesting and challenging.

  52. NoA is down the street by jchenx · · Score: 1
    Say, isn't Nintendo of America located in Redmond WA too?
    Yup, they're down the street. I've heard cool things about their company store (lots of Wii to be had, if you know a friend who works there). Granted, I don't think much development actually occurs there. I think it's mostly marketing, sales, and localization work. It's a small building, located right next to DigiPen.

    There are actually quite a few Nintendo fanboys working in MS, since for years they were the "home team" when it came to video games before the Xbox came around. There are still a lot of folks working in MGS that respect what Nintendo has done (myself included). Sony, not so much, due to their increasing arrogance.
    --
    -- jchenx
    1. Re:NoA is down the street by edwdig · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I've heard, Nintendo has two offices in Redmond. One is the corporate office, which is similar to what you're talking about. Marketing, sales, localization, etc. The other is Nintendo Software Technology. That office actually makes games. They opened in time for GameCube development. They did WaveRace: Blue Storm, 1080 Snowboarding: Avalanche, and Metroid Prime: Hunters. Probably more, but that's all I'm certain of.

  53. Not necessarily *cough PS2 cough* by jchenx · · Score: 1

    Ease of development is definately a pro, but from what I understand, the PS2 was a pain to develop for. I've heard horror stories of development teams using Internet forums to do shop talk, because the official documentation was just utterly useless.

    However, when you're the market leader by far, as the PS2 undoubtedly was, game companies will do almost anything to make sure their titles come out on that console.

    --
    -- jchenx
    1. Re:Not necessarily *cough PS2 cough* by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Except the architecture of the PS2 wasn't fundamentally different, it was just poorly documented. The Cell architecture requires you to learn a whole new paradym, and is totally undocumented, creating a double whammie!

  54. It's difficult to believe ... by jchenx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It just pains me to see possible innovation being killed because it's difficult!!! Is the PS2 tough to develop for, heck yes...PS3...even harder...remember when this was a good thing? The 360 is great, easy, straight forward and BORING!!!!!! Don't get me wrong, I like writing code for the thing, because it makes my job darn easy and I pretty much know what I am going to get on the back end.

    But, call me crazy, I got into this business to innovate, not write mindless code and chase the same bugs. Heck if I wanted that I'd have stayed in the telecom industry.

    In my time with the PS3 I've seen the potential to pull some amazing things out of it graphically and even moreso in AI; a lot more than the 360. This is what we developers asked Sony for when they were developing this thing remember. We wanted the most powerful box they could muster with capability to burn and we got it. Now that we have it it's too hard...WTF!!!!! With any new tech comes new hurdles, GET OVER IT!

    Let's stop with the EA development mentality and remember why we got in this business.
    For me, it's difficult to believe someone "in the industry" who writes the way you do. First of all, you're anonymous. Second, what's with the "!!!!!"? Being someone who actually works in the games industry, I know plenty of developers, tester, managers, etc. and none of them write the way you do. Or specifically, some of the things you say: "We wanted the most powerful box they could muster with capability to burn and we got it. Now that we have it it's too hard...WTF!!!!! With any new tech comes new hurdles, GET OVER IT!"

    You're a fool if you think developers only want "the most powerful box". There's a lot more to the industry, heck software programming in general, than power. Also, you completely ignore the fact that if you were right, then you'd have developers flocking to the Xbox, since it was the most powerful console last generation.
    --
    -- jchenx
  55. Not exactl;y true... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    Sony's decision to use asymetic processors, and NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH DEVELOPER SUPPORT was a bad decision. If the technology could be used easily, it is some pretty cool stuff!

  56. Re:odd by Danse · · Score: 1
    You can represent anything a computer can do using true and false. It'll just be extremely time consuming and error prone.

    What do you mean can? That's how a computer works. It's the only way a computer works. Everything is either on or off, true or false, 1 or 0. Everything we do with a computer is done by manipulating those 1s and 0s. We stand on the shoulders of giants when we write programs. Someone did have to do all that extremely time-consuming and error-prone stuff so that we can write in languages that are much easier to understand and a lot less time-consuming.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  57. Re:odd by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

    No kidding? Wow I thought all those programs just up and wrote themselves. I said "can" because you "can" do it that way. Jesus christ, go get some counseling.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  58. Troll? by snuf23 · · Score: 1

    Uh the submitter that reposted the whole article inserted the text about CmrTaco into the story copy. And I'm the troll for noticing it?

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
  59. You say that like it is an exclusive to PS3 fans.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the other system fanboys are any diffrent.....

    Would this kind of stupidity sit well here if I linked to some Xbox or Nintendo forums? No matter what system it is, they all suffer from rabid fanboys making stupid comments.

  60. Re:odd by antonyb · · Score: 1

    I'll re-iterate; its *many, many* years since I studied this stuff, but here goes. What you've said is strictly true - you can represent anything on a computer using 1 & 0. This is the basis of the Turing machine. However to be able to use that you also need to add other operations; L,R,read,write.

  61. Re:odd by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    BTW, if and while in themselves are not "boolean logic", they are jumps that rely on a boolean condition. Boolean logic has no concept of jumps, because it is not a programming language, it is a form of maths.

    That's only because the CPU has abstracted the boolean logic for you.

  62. My take. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm no programmer but I've played both the 360 and PS3. If the 360's power is easier to exploit, and the PS3 has a long way to go, then the PS3 seems like a better long term investment. Resistance just as good as the best 360 titles, and if, as Carmack claims, it was made with crappy development tools, imagine what late gen games will look like? John Carmack has always made his money developing games for Windows so I'm sure it's easier to port his PC games to the 360 rather than the PS3. But if the best PS3 shooters blow Carmack's creations away (Resistance is a million times better looking and plays better than Quake 4, a 360 game using the technology Carmack built, and both launch titles for their respective systems). So, it might be easier to develop for the 360, but I really don't want to play games made by people with that attitude (don't get into programming if you don't like a challenge). DOOM was cool back in the day but now I want games that make me think. I would rather play a game designed by Kojima and programmed by someone who slaves away for him than one designed by a programmer who doesn't know what a story or puzzle is.

    You may think I "don't have the right" to contradict the great John Carmack because he's made 3D software engines and designs rockets for fun, but he's still financially bound to Microsoft, so that alone is enough to dismiss this as FUD. It sounds to me like future id games are going to be released on the 360 and every PS3 sold is a potential lost sale for id. You guys would acknowledge that if David Jaffe said the PS3 was the better development environment, that comment would be a marketing pitch. The same is true with Carmack, you guys have just dehumanized him in your geek worship and forgotten that just like every human he lies, makes mistakes, and exaggerates.

  63. Re:odd by Danse · · Score: 1
    I said "can" because you "can" do it that way. Jesus christ, go get some counseling.

    You implied that there was a choice. You said it can be done that way, but there are consequences, as if there is some other way to do it. Don't get all pissy because you got corrected.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  64. Re:odd by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

    Not all machines are binary, chief.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  65. Re:odd by Danse · · Score: 1
    Not all machines are binary, chief.

    We've been discussing Windows and PCs, so yes, all of them are binary. Windows doesn't run on any other kind of machine. Name one non-binary computer in common use today. Any that have been developed are simply for experimental purposes and are little more than curiosities. The only practical non-binary machines in development are quantum computers, and they are still very much in their infancy and don't do anything very useful yet.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  66. hire a photographer? by harkabeeparolyn · · Score: 1

    I know this is a gaming mag, but sweet Jesus couldn't they hire a decent photographer? Up the nose shots, unbounced flash, red-eye, shooting subjects with their eyes closed, subjects slouched, distracting elements in the frame... the only thing the photographer didn't do wrong was take a picture of their thumb!

  67. Re:odd by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Actually this is not asian or european/american, it is more along the lines of ide approach or toolset approach. You can see similar things in Unix/vs Windows or Java vs. .Net. You just get a huge integration due to Microsoft on the XBox because the dev tools people from Microsoft in a huge part are former Borland people (Anders HJelfsberg being the head of .Net). This has nothing to do with asian philosopy!

  68. Re:What's happened to us... by Anthony+Baby · · Score: 1

    interesting and challenging development tools vs. interesting and challenging games...

    I think that is what this whole argument comes down to. Those that earn a living developing on the PSx don't want an interesting and challenging environment to work in. If the tools are *that* hard to work with, it's going to ultimately affect game quality until developers figure out the machine. More and more games could turn out wonky, buggy, and just plain substandard by player's expectations - not because of poor game design, but because that design couldn't be effectively implemented given the PS3's challenging tools and the available time developers have to work.

    If you're bread and butter aren't tied into churning out software, interesting and challenging development tools can be quite fun; a kind of hacking challenge to see what you can get your system to do. That's where I am with GBA programming. It's fun, but thankfully I make my money on other platforms.