Sony "helped design" 360 processor

Ok, so now next generation partner up on one console so we don't have to buy 2 expensive consoles to play all the good HD games! :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Ok, so now next generation partner up on one console so we don't have to buy 2 expensive consoles to play all the good HD games! :D[/quote]


Dennis Dyack :whee:
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Dennis Dyack :whee:[/QUOTE]

No he wants a one console future. I don't thing that would be a good thing there needs to be some competition.

But I think we'd be fine with one high tech console and whatever Nintendo has out. It's hard to justify owning both a 360 and PS3 when so many of the games are on both--especially when it still costs $700 to own both (factoring in getting a 360 with a hard drive).
 
What Dyack means by one console future is that there's only one format of video game. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft can still make consoles (hell, Toshiba or whoever else can get in on the fun) but all video games play on any of the consoles. He likens it to DVDs in that any dvd you buy, no matter what studio produces it, can play on any dvd player. It makes perfect sense and I could easily imagine it happening.
 
I assume Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft would be against the idea of one format because they feel exclusivity is more profitable. Plus, what if Wal-Mart created a console that is terrible but sold well and hurt the industry? I would not want that to happen.
 
Nintendo has a close relationship between hardware development and software development. They arent going to give it up, and they arent going to license their software for use outside their system, nor would it be possible from a control standpoint.

The one console future is one without Nintendo. That is to say, it is fiction of the highest order.
 
Nintendo is not going anywhere. They'll always be around unless they somehow tank and go bankrupt which is unlikely as they've been strong for years. Struggled a bit with the N64 and GC, but always had the portables raking in the cash.

I think we just need them and a Sony/MS partnership or one of them to die off. There's just no need for two machines on the market trying to do pretty much the same exact thing. With major 3rd party exclusives becoming rarer and rarer as time goes on, there's just not enoug exclusives to justify buying multiple consoles that do the same things and play pretty much the same games with the same graphics and online features.

Personally, I don't care that much as none of Sony's first party stuff or third party exclusives are must plays for me anyway. There's several I'd like to play, but nothing I can't stand missing out on. But it would still be nice to not have to buy two expensive machines to play all the HD/online games, and it would make business sense as they could split costs since high powered consoles lose money on hardware sales. But it will never happen. They'll both stick around unless one fails miserably in a future gen and has to go out of the game business.
 
I prefer Sony's exclusives over Microsofts. It doesn't help that EPIC is going down the shitter with Gears of War and that they royally boned their flagship Unreal series for it. Thanks to Gears, we'll never see an Unreal 3. Though people who said that Epic recently turned graphics whores are on something. EPIC has ALWAYS been graphics whores since Jazz Jackrabbit.
 
Yeah, it's just what you prefer among the few worthwhile exclusives.really. I love Gears, Halo and Mass Effect so those drew me to the 360--that and I had friends with 360s and Live and no one with a PS3 (still don't know anyone personally with one other than my brother and he only plays sports games).

I don't care much about MGS, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank etc. Would play a couple of them if they were multiplatform, but nothing that has me itching to buy a PS3. But others love them and the PS3 is the better choice for them.
 
Kinda off-topic but kinda relevant :p

Is it true Gears pushes the 360 to the limit? Friend told me a developer said it in an interview
 
[quote name='Maklershed']What Dyack means by one console future is that there's only one format of video game. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft can still make consoles (hell, Toshiba or whoever else can get in on the fun) but all video games play on any of the consoles. He likens it to DVDs in that any dvd you buy, no matter what studio produces it, can play on any dvd player. It makes perfect sense and I could easily imagine it happening.[/quote]


Yeah, they have already developed that. its called a Personal Computer. lol, no offense dude
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A) Doesn't bother me .. it's not my theory. :)

B) It's not a computer because it would be a pre built thing. Maybe an Alienware computer. But not a pc.
 
funny stuff actually. and honestly it is the circle of life coming back on sony. Microsoft actually took the blueprint for the ps2 and stepped it up a notch.

1: stole all the ps2 games for the next gen
2: made a faulty system which would cause owners to buy more like the ps2( i know several people who have 2 or 3 360's in case one breaks down)

can't blame them honestly, the only problem that i see with what microsoft is doing is not allowing for innovation in gaming like the wii or the ps3 does. sure it may sell more systems and more games in the long run, but mark my words the closer m$ gets to controling the video game industry to less innovative and creative games we will get.
 
[quote name='DarkKenpachi']funny stuff actually. and honestly it is the circle of life coming back on sony. Microsoft actually took the blueprint for the ps2 and stepped it up a notch.

1: stole all the ps2 games for the next gen
2: made a faulty system which would cause owners to buy more like the ps2( i know several people who have 2 or 3 360's in case one breaks down)

can't blame them honestly, the only problem that i see with what microsoft is doing is not allowing for innovation in gaming like the wii or the ps3 does. sure it may sell more systems and more games in the long run, but mark my words the closer m$ gets to controling the video game industry to less innovative and creative games we will get.[/QUOTE]

I can see that you are a very intelligent person who bases his opinion on facts.
 
[quote name='DarkKenpachi']funny stuff actually. and honestly it is the circle of life coming back on sony. Microsoft actually took the blueprint for the ps2 and stepped it up a notch.

1: stole all the ps2 games for the next gen
2: made a faulty system which would cause owners to buy more like the ps2( i know several people who have 2 or 3 360's in case one breaks down)

can't blame them honestly, the only problem that i see with what microsoft is doing is not allowing for innovation in gaming like the wii or the ps3 does. sure it may sell more systems and more games in the long run, but mark my words the closer m$ gets to controling the video game industry to less innovative and creative games we will get.[/quote]

Innovation? How does the PS3 allow innovation? Oh, and motion control bullshit has been done before, so the Wii isn't exactly new ground, just mainstream.
 
^I'd say the ps3 allows innovation by allowing the use of 50gb discs for one.

Another funny thing I read the other day is that M$ is using Home for conferencing.
 
Jack Kilby helped design all consoles!!1

And lol at the article.

New technology looked good, Sony was not in an exclusive deal for the individual parts, why not use what seems to be the best at the time?

IBM made em' both.
 
I don't mind having 2 consoles to buy, as long as they keep the tradition of releasing them 1 year apart.

Having competition forces the console makers to reduce prices.

case in point, at launch the ps3 cost $600 for the 60gb model. due to the competition and the price war, you could pick both a ps3 and a 360 right now for $700, with further price cuts for the PS3 rumored. so YES, I freakin' love competition.
 
[quote name='zewone']Name one 50GB disc game.

MS isn't using Home for conferencing.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=205194[/quote]


MGS4 is a BD50
(it's 46.6 GB)
Granted a lot of the games are still only 23gb (resistance 1 is 22gb, resistance 2 is 24gb i know off the top of my head.) But, think about that...That's 3 times the size of most PC and 360 games.
The switch to blu ray is like the switch from cartridge to CD. They even have a 400gb blu-ray disc ready to go that is compatible with current BD players. That's innovation.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']A) Doesn't bother me .. it's not my theory. :)

B) It's not a computer because it would be a pre built thing. Maybe an Alienware computer. But not a pc.[/QUOTE]

It was called 3DO.

When Microsoft started the Xbox project, one of the ideas they considered was a platform design that any manufacturer could sell. Microsoft would handle the software side. This made sense in that it would be very similar to the PC business model. But companies like Dell were aware of how badly this sort of thing had fared for Panasonic and LG with the 3DO platform.
 
[quote name='HowStern']MGS4 is a BD50
(it's 46.6 GB)
Granted a lot of the games are still only 23gb (resistance 1 is 22gb, resistance 2 is 24gb i know off the top of my head.) But, think about that...That's 3 times the size of most PC and 360 games.
The switch to blu ray is like the switch from cartridge to CD. They even have a 400gb blu-ray disc ready to go that is compatible with current BD players. That's innovation.[/QUOTE]

Over time it will be but most games to date not using the capacity in a way that delviers more to any one region. Having a single disc that includes localized content for a large number of regions doesn't improve things for individual gamers.

It was pretty much the same in the early days of CD-ROM. The games that really needed the space tended to FMV exercises that were painful once the novelty wore off. The rest were games that could just easily be on a cartridge if the FMV bits were dropped, and many were. And lets face it, the interminable non-interactive sequences in MGS4 are very reminiscent of those awful FMV games.

Don't hold your breath waiting for 400 GB BDs to appear. Laboratory demos do not necessarily become products. The yield issues on such a disc would be nightmarish and the market generally lacking. Researchers are already working at producing laser using a narrower spectrum to enable higher capacity media without resorting to troublesome massive multi-layering. It isn't a new concept. Back when DVD was new, more than one company demonstrated disc with four or more layers to put much more content on a single disc. No product ever reached the stores because no likely OEM could be convinced the product was attractive enough to overcome the cost of significantly lower yields.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sony-helped-design-360-processor[/QUOTE]

The book behind the article tries to create scandal where none existed. It helps to drum up sales for something that would otherwise have a very small audience.

In the beginning, when Sony first announced Cell, they tried to claim it would be an entirely new architecture. This was regarded as dubious by those who understood the expense of doing this instead of building on an existing structure. So it was no surprise when IBM's primary contribution was customizing their (and Motorola/Freescale's) PowerPC IP for the specific applications Sony had in mind. IBM was in the business of producing PowerPC variants for different companies. Intel had too much work from the PC market to make custom chips worth their time.

IBM long had the policy of retaining the right to sell their own version of chips they manufactured for others. Their Blue Lightning 486 processor was the same item as the 486 clone they manufactured for Cyrix. (I had a prototype review unit using their 133 MHz version that shipped with Win3.11 and was my first Win95 install.) Reselling customized IP was just a variation on this policy.

The idea that Sony didn't think anybody else would have use for this design is just silly. Sony knew nobody could clone the Cell. The PowerPC portion wasn't a problem in a non-Sony product anymore than any other PowerPC variant.
 
[quote name='epobirs']The book behind the article tries to create scandal where none existed. It helps to drum up sales for something that would otherwise have a very small audience.

In the beginning, when Sony first announced Cell, they tried to claim it would be an entirely new architecture. This was regarded as dubious by those who understood the expense of doing this instead of building on an existing structure. So it was no surprise when IBM's primary contribution was customizing their (and Motorola/Freescale's) PowerPC IP for the specific applications Sony had in mind. IBM was in the business of producing PowerPC variants for different companies. Intel had too much work from the PC market to make custom chips worth their time.

IBM long had the policy of retaining the right to sell their own version of chips they manufactured for others. Their Blue Lightning 486 processor was the same item as the 486 clone they manufactured for Cyrix. (I had a prototype review unit using their 133 MHz version that shipped with Win3.11 and was my first Win95 install.) Reselling customized IP was just a variation on this policy.

The idea that Sony didn't think anybody else would have use for this design is just silly. Sony knew nobody could clone the Cell. The PowerPC portion wasn't a problem in a non-Sony product anymore than any other PowerPC variant.[/QUOTE]
It looks to me like Sony really screwed up with the Cell anyway, what with the 360 being about as powerful. If I remember right, the Cell concept was supposed to handle the graphics as well, and when this didn't work out they went with a typical GPU from NVIDIA instead. Do you know any more about this epobirs?
 
[quote name='Paco']I prefer Sony's exclusives over Microsofts. It doesn't help that EPIC is going down the shitter with Gears of War and that they royally boned their flagship Unreal series for it. Thanks to Gears, we'll never see an Unreal 3. Though people who said that Epic recently turned graphics whores are on something. EPIC has ALWAYS been graphics whores since Jazz Jackrabbit.[/quote]

What? The Unreal series hasn't been doing that well recently. My theory is that the people who played Quake 3 and the original UT are still there, but there are so many new gamers that as a percentage the twitch shooter fans are smaller now.
 
[quote name='rickonker']What? The Unreal series hasn't been doing that well recently. My theory is that the people who played Quake 3 and the original UT are still there, but there are so many new gamers that as a percentage the twitch shooter fans are smaller now.[/quote]
I assume by "recently" you mean UT3 since UT2K4 was successful. It's pretty easy to make numbers say what you want with a sample size of 1, espcially when the game was just average.
 
[quote name='Genocidal']I assume by "recently" you mean UT3 since UT2K4 was successful. It's pretty easy to make numbers say what you want with a sample size of 1, espcially when the game was just average.[/QUOTE]
I just mean the overall trend in the last 10 years, but yes UT3 is a good example. The single player series is dead with Unreal 2. Unreal Championship 2 was a great game but it didn't sell too well so it doesn't look like it's getting a sequel. UT2K3, UT2K4, and UT3 might all have made money but none of them reached the kind of levels the original UT did. Definitely nowhere near Gears of War. Epic is doing fine thanks to engine licensing and GoW, and they'll probably keep putting out UT games once in a while out of nostalgia if nothing else, but I don't see it being their primary series anymore.

Oh and a new UT was supposed to be released every year like a sports series. We know that didn't work out.
 
[quote name='rickonker']It looks to me like Sony really screwed up with the Cell anyway, what with the 360 being about as powerful. If I remember right, the Cell concept was supposed to handle the graphics as well, and when this didn't work out they went with a typical GPU from NVIDIA instead. Do you know any more about this epobirs?[/QUOTE]

The original concept for the Cell was that they would scale with great efficiency as more Cells were added. Some of the early Sony claims, long before there was any real silicon, was that the PS3 or other Cell based device would be able to enlist Cells in other household devices for supplemental processing power. The idea that this could be used for games, especially on a console where homogeneity is critical, is completely absurd. It might be useful for lengthy non-interactive tasks like transcoding HD video but the cost of dedicated silicon for that purpose has always been more cost effective.

The 'box full of Cells' concept kept going for a few years of development but two problems kept it from becoming a reality. Just as with most existing CPUs, scaling past two sockets had a big efficency hit. Anyone with a quad-core PC has seen this in how most apps not specifically designed for it don't make much better use of four cores compared to two. The gains for most use is that most systems are doing more than one big app these days. In servers, techniques like virtualization allow the resources to be allocated so that no one app is really seeing all of the processing elements.

The Cell really isn't a multicore processor in the same sense as a Core 2 Quad or a Phenom. It is a single PowerPC core with a bunch of specialized execution units bolted on. It has a lot of power but this is used in a very different way than something like system with multiple x86 processors.

So putting a bunch of Cells in a box wasn't going to deliver as planned. This was just as well because the Cell was proving to be a bitch to manufacture. Much as when the PS2's Emotion Engine was first produced, a smaller process node was badly needed for good yields and pricing. Putting multiple Cells in a product would have made it so expenisve as to make the eventual losses from the actual launch PS3s seem minor. So they went shopping for a GPU to use in a more conventional design.

If you look at videos from the first E3 where Sony demoed the PS3, even though no actual PS3 boards yet existed, you'll see two different sets of demos. Some are Cell demos and others are Nvidia GPU demos running on a PC. This is because there were no systems integrating the two then and certainly no time to do any programming on it.

If you were starting from scratch today with the available parts, the original PS3 concept could be implemented. It would still have the scaling issues but compiler support for genuine multi-processor systems is a lot better now than just a few years ago. But in general it's unlikely anyone would see it as a good design to pursue for an entertainment system. For other apps it makes more sense to put Cells on bladesto be installed in a server rack rather than make a standalone system.
 
[quote name='rickonker']It looks to me like Sony really screwed up with the Cell anyway, what with the 360 being about as powerful. If I remember right, the Cell concept was supposed to handle the graphics as well, and when this didn't work out they went with a typical GPU from NVIDIA instead. Do you know any more about this epobirs?[/quote]


Sony screwed up in many ways, the cell is not one of them and saying the 360 is "as powerful" is generalizing. The Cell is much much more powerful than the 360's processor. Where as the 360 gpu is slightly better than he PS3 gpu. Therefore, it has taken time for people to unleash the power of the cell. And they are starting to this year. Look at Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2. They look better than anything on the 360. Yes even Gears 2, which has pushed the 360 to it's limit. We don't even know if we have with the PS3. And the thing to keep in mind with the cell is that it is not limited to the direct x 9 technology the 360 gpu is. The cell can perform Direct x 10 functions and does so in games like Killzone 2.

If you still are not a believer of the cell, read the Killzone 2 forum on Neogaf, and you will be.
 
[quote name='zewone']That's one game.[/quote]

And your point? It took 5 years and one game (God of War) to showcase what the PS2 could fully do. Remember ps2 games looked like crap, and then games like Twisted Metal, Onimusha, Ratchet showcased what it could do. I believe Killzone 2 will be the beginning of many great looking ps3 games to come.
 
No, you're wrong.

FFX and MGS2 showed what the PS2 could do very early on.

And you said that Gears 2 pushed the 360 to it's full potential, again another naive statement.

In years to follow (at least 2 more years for the 360), people will get more familiar with the architecture and find ways to do more with less.

It's great to see a game being utilized like KZ2, but just because one game is on the right track doesn't mean everything else will follow suit.
 
[quote name='zewone']No, you're wrong.

FFX and MGS2 showed what the PS2 could do very early on.

And you said that Gears 2 pushed the 360 to it's full potential, again another naive statement.

In years to follow (at least 2 more years for the 360), people will get more familiar with the architecture and find ways to do more with less.

It's great to see a game being utilized like KZ2, but just because one game is on the right track doesn't mean everything else will follow suit.[/quote]

Both those games came out essentially 1 year and a half after ps2 came out. Just like Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank.

I am just telling you what CliffyB said about the 360. He essentially said the same thing, sure they can optimize more and stuff, but they have already reached the limit of the 360.

One game? Have you seen the screenshots to Uncharted 2? How about Uncharted 1? Infamous looks really good too and we still haven't seen God of War III in it's entirety or Ratchet and Clank. Wait till E3 and then you can tell me It's "one game."
 
[quote name='zewone']Ok, wait until E3 and tell me the 360 has reached it's potential.

It works both ways.[/quote]


What exactly do we have to look forward to on the 360? Alan Wake and Splinter cell Conviction, both games that have been in development hell for years? Mass Effect? A game also made for the PC which makes it harder for them to focus solely on the 360? (and we don't even know it if's exclusive anymore). Halo 3 Recon, made by Bungie who have never been known has graphical powerhouses?

What do we have on the PS3? Gran Turismo, God of War III, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank. Ton of games that you will see using the cell.
And I didn't say the PS3 had reached it's potential. I said with Killzone 2 your really starting to see the power of the cell utilized and how great games can look with that. Your starting to see it in other games as well in Uncharted 2 and Infamous. Which, it's hard to argue against that.

Back to the point of the thread, The Wii uses a form of the PowerPC as well, so pretty much you could say Sony funded it's development as well /sarcasm.
 
[quote name='zewone']I'm only interested in God of War III out of those titles. As far as the games on the 360, who knows?[/quote]

We aren't talking about games that look interesting, we are talking about games that look great graphically.

And it's harder for the 360 to pull that off because they don't have as many 1st party studios who can solely focus on getting the most out of the 360.

I believe they only have one left in the guys who make Forza.....
 
Well, it's not always the first party guys who make great looking games.

Look at Gears of War 2, Lost Odyssey, FFXIII.

Plus, Alan Wake blows all the games you mentioned out of the water so far.
 
[quote name='zewone']Well, it's not always the first party guys who make great looking games.

Look at Gears of War 2, Lost Odyssey, FFXIII.

Plus, Alan Wake blows all the games you mentioned out of the water so far.[/quote]


How does Alan Wake, a game that we haven't seen or heard of much of at all in a long time, blow them all out of the water?
Believe me, I am excited for it as well, as I have had nothing to entice me to turn on my 360 in a long time, so I have been dieing to hear more about that game and haven't.

And Mistwalker only made games for the 360, so they were essentially a first party.

Plus, Everything we have seen on FF XIII so far is the PS3 alone, which proves my point that the cell is starting to be used more and more, even by third parties.

But, generally speaking, first parties get more out of a system than third parties.
 
[quote name='zewone']In Sony's case that's true. Most 3rd parties don't know how to code for the machine.[/quote]

This was true in the beginning but I think you are starting to see a shift in that at least they can make it look as good as the 360. Look at Burnout, Prince of Persia, and COD 4, pretty much identical on all systems. You have the same thing with Ghostbusters too.

And it's hard to compare the two because the third parties you see with the most success are guys who have been pc developers for a long time, such as Bethesda and Epic (although Oblivion ran better on the PS3...), and the 360 is extremely similar to the PC, where as the PS3 is radically different. Valkyria Chronicles is a really good looking game developed by Sega for the PS3.

I think you will no longer see any difference graphically between third party games on the 360 and PS3, as you are already seeing this. But, PS3 first party exclusives will start to overtake 360 exclusives in the graphic realm real shortly. And this becomes vital as third party exclusives become rarer and rarer.
 
Personally, I don't think Killzone 2 looks all that good. Take away (or at least turn down) the obnoxiously high motion blur and filters and I bet you'd have an average looking game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top