Did Microsoft win it for Nintendo?

pwd

I agree that the x-box would appeal more to developers than the PS3 because of the issues listed above. Microsoft also have pushed the xna framework and have run a couple of competitions for developing games on it which got a good response.
On the other hand, the 360 uses quad cores, and afaik (could be wrong), the PS3 has a single core. Multithreaded development would typically be more difficult than development for a single core machine.

It is interesting to see how Microsoft are breaking into the market. They are extremely aggressive in business and use their huge clout. I was told in an interview in Microsoft a year ago that they had never made a profit with the x-box: They have just been looking for market share.

MS seem to be using a similar approach in supplanting Flash with Silverlight in one regard at least - you program Silverlight 2 applications in Visual Studio with a regular .NET language.

tba

The PS3 has a multicore CPU.

It is called the Cell processor.

AlmightyCushion

pwd wrote: »

It is interesting to see how Microsoft are breaking into the market. They are extremely aggressive in business and use their huge clout. I was told in an interview in Microsoft a year ago that they had never made a profit with the x-box: They have just been looking for market share.

Yup, I think the first time the gaming division pulled a profit was the period halo 3 launched. They'll gladly pissed away money with the first xbox just to get a foot in the door and look how well it served them.

GothPunk

I'm not sure if Micosoft won it for Nintendo, they certainly forced Sony into an awkward position. I think that Nintendo noticed that there was a casual gaming market available and took a gamble. They ended up winning big. Sony saw that there was a casual market but they didn't exploit it to the extent Nintendo has, but I'm sure a last minute push on a more-casual friendly PS2 could have won them some gains, but would it really have been enough to hold the monster that is the Wii off?

Nintendo seem to be in an odd position with the Wii. Even they couldn't predict how well their gamble would pay off. We see that now where it seems like Nintendo are still testing the waters with the Wii, releasing new peripheral orientated games, but no new IPs and few games are being released. This seems to suggest that a year and a half ago very few projects were in dvelopment compared to how many must certainly be i development now. I don't think the Wii has even really reached it's stride games wise, which will make Nintendo even more money. However this down time would have been the perfect thing for Sony to exploit, but they dropped the ball. I guess you could say Microsoft played a huge part here.

Nintendo have with the DS taken an approach like Apple with the iPod and are releasing new iterations of the console every now and then, which is now working for Sony with the PSP as well. There has been rumours that a 'WiiHD' will be released, standing for both Hard Disk and/or High Def, but I don't know if that's a good move for Nintendo. Sure the core gamer crowd want that, but are Nintendo really interested in that demographic anymore? Will Nintendo go there with the Wii or are peripherals enough?

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The PS1 was the base console, so was the PS2. This time around the 360 is the base console that all multiplatform games are built up on, when it passess and its successor comes in, chances are high that it will be the next base console and games will be ported down to the ps3. Much in the fashion same games are ported down to the PS2 and Wii, inferior ports rushed on inferior engines. Sony really need to get companies like EA to start making their games on the PS3 first and then to the 360, not vice versa.

The PS3 was the lead console for EA's latest cross platform titles - Burnout Paradise, Dead Space and Mirror's Edge. I remember reading an article about it on Kotaku ages ago and they were wondering what information we were missing out on for EA to take this development position. Then it was revealed that the PS3 is making more money for EA, ahead of the 360, PS2.. even the Wii. I think that third parties will have a much greater impact this console generation than ever before, which I think Nintendo needs to address.

As for whether the PS3 will remain 'up-to-date' for longer, I guess that's all theory at the moment. What I do think we'll see happening is that the PC developers will have to become better at running programs in parallel, what with quad-core processors becoming more common and I'm sure we'll see octo-core processors at some point. Perhaps I don't understand it as well as I think, but wouldn't programs that take advantage of multiple processors (i.e. run in parallel) then be more suited to the PS3? I guess at that point Microsoft will bring out the successor to the 360.

noodler

Kharn wrote: »

I think where Noodler is talking about Sony as a whole, DeV's breaking it down by individual console and I think that's the correct way to look at it. I would imagine that within Sony's Gaming section there are PS2, PS3 and PSP sections who are to an extend in competition with one another.

Thats all well and good but his words were Sony would be screwed. When 20m is their ps3 console base-it isn't quite the disaster many make it out to be. PSP/PS2 sales are important, hell it was GBA/DS sales that really kept Nintendo going strong during the relative failure of the Gamecube.

As the current "losers" in this console war with 20m consoles according to VGC in their midlife, can anyone tell me how many the Xbox, Dreamcast, Saturn and Gamecube sold?

DeVore

Do you actually understand the word "if" ?

DeV.

noodler

Alright, for the third time, even IF, your statement that Sony would be screwed seems inaccurate.

Jesus, stop squirming.

Dara Robinson

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

In fact Sony could have repackaged the ps2 at a discount price with the motion sensing stuff included and made a killing over the Wii.

I don't believe that even for a second. The Wii has a lot of unique selling points that the PS2 does not have. Anyways Sony were, as usual, being greedy. They are in the process (well it could be finished) or creating a controller that should act very similar to the Wii controller. Their greed factor boils down to the fact that they are making it so it will only work like the Wii controller only when you plug a PSP console into it. Truth is that if they truly wanted to do something like they probably could have.

Anyways, the Wii rocks

BlitzKrieg

The Wii has a lot of unique selling points that the PS2 does not have.

Can I get a breakdown on those selling points that would be impossible for the PS2 to emulate If (and this is as big as Devore's If) Sony had focused their marketing/development on the PS2 being direct competition to the Wii instead of chasing the high end market.

They are in the process (well it could be finished) or creating a controller that should act very similar to the Wii controller.

I think there are rumours that everyone is looking into a motion controller microsoft, Sony, hell nintendo as well with every new hit comes a new motion sensing attachment (besides I thought the sixaxis was Sony's counter?)

astrofool

GothPunk wrote: »

As for whether the PS3 will remain 'up-to-date' for longer, I guess that's all theory at the moment. What I do think we'll see happening is that the PC developers will have to become better at running programs in parallel, what with quad-core processors becoming more common and I'm sure we'll see octo-core processors at some point. Perhaps I don't understand it as well as I think, but wouldn't programs that take advantage of multiple processors (i.e. run in parallel) then be more suited to the PS3? I guess at that point Microsoft will bring out the successor to the 360.

The problem with the cell is that each cell unit is really only suited towards very specific processing, whereas all development on multi-core is, so far, using multi core general purpose cpu's, which actually matches the 360's processor (3 "hyper threaded" power pc general purpose core's) then cell (1 all purpose core with 7 instruction specific cores).

In effect Sony/Toshiba created a cross between a CPU (1 general purpose core) and a GPU (many specific purpose core), which, imo, was pointless as they were putting a GPU in the PS3 as well (although this was tacked on when they realised that Cell wouldn't be able to push the pixels fast enough by itself).

Intel is putting 80 x86 pentium core's on a single die and using it as a GPU (google: Larrabee), I don't see a cell type architecture, as it's used in the PS3, ever having a long term application in computing.

onemorechance

The Wii shows that Nintendo still rule in terms of originality and innovation. The original xbox shows that Microsoft don't put much thought into stuff, by releasing the best (hackable) console in ages by accident! Sony are great at marketing their brand. As for original post, with or without Wii, Sony and Xbox would have changed nothing. I'm sure they will both take the Wii's interaction into account for their next gen consoles.

Climate Expert

Nobody plays the WII or buys its games. They sell ****loads of consoles but MS aren't going to try and emulate them.

BlitzKrieg

As for original post, with or without Wii, Sony and Xbox would have changed nothing.

Well thats obvious.

But I was saying without Xbox things would have gone very different.

onemorechance

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Well thats obvious.

But I was saying without Xbox things would have gone very different.

Ok, without xbox, ya probably things would have gone different for Sony, but I doubt much would have changed on Nintendo side.

BlitzKrieg

but I doubt much would have changed on Nintendo side.

On the development of their machine, yourr right, Nintendo rarely seem to react or change their development regardless of the competition and they had proven that even with a lacklustre sales record such as the gamecube they could still make a profit.

But I do things would have gone different in the actual market place between the two and nintendo wouldnt have taken the crown of *casual gaming* as easily as they did.

Nobody plays the WII or buys its games. They sell ****loads of consoles but MS aren't going to try and emulate them.

Oh would you shut up and actually read the bloody thread before posting, your an awful bore and a severe annoyance.

DeVore

Climate Expert wrote: »

Nobody plays the WII or buys its games. They sell ****loads of consoles but MS aren't going to try and emulate them.

DeV.

Climate Expert

Wow thats xbox live and who came up with it? MS. Oh but look they are using little characters, that means its just a Wii ripoff, blah blah, stop it.

GothPunk

DeVore, if you haven't already come across this story I thought you might find it interesting. It's about how Sony inadvertently covered some of Microsoft's R&D expenses.

From that article we learn that Sony was (with IBM and Toshiba) working on the Cell processor in 2001, planning for a late 2005 launch of the PS3. With so much money pumped into such a large project like the Cell processor for so long, perhaps that's why Sony didn't jump at the opportunity to retool and refocus the PS2 to beat the Wii crowd? That article also seems to suggest that Sony planned on a 2005-2006 release for the PS3 a long time ago and thus weren't rushed into release by Microsoft.

astrofool wrote: »

Intel is putting 80 x86 pentium core's on a single die and using it as a GPU (google: Larrabee), I don't see a cell type architecture, as it's used in the PS3, ever having a long term application in computing.

The PS3 is being used a lot as a cheap option to build dedicated high throughput computing nodes/clusters. We have folding@home for example and a group at Berkeley recently used 200 PS3's to break internet security algorithms. So Sony might find a long term application of the cell type architecture in computer science/bioinformatics labs :pac:

I've mixed up my terms a bit when I said 'parallel processing' (Only took computer science in first year ). What I meant was, with how games are developed for the PS3, with each individual SPE handling different tasks like AI, physics, lighting etc will some PC developers follow suit? Is it possible on a quad core or octo core CPU to code for each core to handle multifaceted programs in the same way the PS3 does? (So for example, perhaps the system OS runs on only one or two out of 8 cores, so you could Alt-Tab out of a game instantly as the OS doesn't have to share i.e. in the same way in-game XMB works on the PS3.)

If something like this does happen it would mean that Sony are ahead of the curve which could work in their favour. If not it means that the PS3, although powerful, will be somewhat alone in how programs must be developed for it. If you're interested in the usage of the Cell processor in games, this thread on NeoGAF forums has a lot of information.

Basically no game yet is using the PS3's Cell SPE's to full capacity.

monument

Could everybody play nice, thanks.

Climate Expert wrote: »

Wow thats xbox live and who came up with it? MS. Oh but look they are using little characters, that means its just a Wii ripoff, blah blah, stop it.

Where did MS get the idea?

Climate Expert

monument wrote: »

Could everybody play nice, thanks.




Where did MS get the idea?

RPGs and just a development of the whole online avatar thing.

astrofool

GothPunk wrote: »

DeVore, if you haven't already come across this story I thought you might find it interesting. It's about how Sony inadvertently covered some of Microsoft's R&D expenses.

From that article we learn that Sony was (with IBM and Toshiba) working on the Cell processor in 2001, planning for a late 2005 launch of the PS3. With so much money pumped into such a large project like the Cell processor for so long, perhaps that's why Sony didn't jump at the opportunity to retool and refocus the PS2 to beat the Wii crowd? That article also seems to suggest that Sony planned on a 2005-2006 release for the PS3 a long time ago and thus weren't rushed into release by Microsoft.



The PS3 is being used a lot as a cheap option to build dedicated high throughput computing nodes/clusters. We have folding@home for example and a group at Berkeley recently used 200 PS3's to break internet security algorithms. So Sony might find a long term application of the cell type architecture in computer science/bioinformatics labs :pac:

I've mixed up my terms a bit when I said 'parallel processing' (Only took computer science in first year ). What I meant was, with how games are developed for the PS3, with each individual SPE handling different tasks like AI, physics, lighting etc will some PC developers follow suit? Is it possible on a quad core or octo core CPU to code for each core to handle multifaceted programs in the same way the PS3 does? (So for example, perhaps the system OS runs on only one or two out of 8 cores, so you could Alt-Tab out of a game instantly as the OS doesn't have to share i.e. in the same way in-game XMB works on the PS3.)

If something like this does happen it would mean that Sony are ahead of the curve which could work in their favour. If not it means that the PS3, although powerful, will be somewhat alone in how programs must be developed for it. If you're interested in the usage of the Cell processor in games, this thread on NeoGAF forums has a lot of information.

Basically no game yet is using the PS3's Cell SPE's to full capacity.

On folding@home, ATI (x1k series+) and nVidia (GT200 series) are far far far more powerful at folding then what the PS3 is capable of (in fact, the GPU in the xbox being x1k derived, could probably whomp it as well, if MS allowed for it), the reason the PS3 gets used at all is simple, Sony subsidises the cost of each console, so people get the hardware at a discount. They also have a larger install base then owners of the PC graphics cards (for the moment).

The problem with the SPE's is that you need a really really f*cking good compiler to get any kind of performance out of it, and even then it takes a lot of hand tweaking of the code, whereas, as you say, games will eventually follow a multi core route, this is useless to the PS3, due to the difficulty of doing AI and physics on a limited core, compared to the general purpose X86 core, or sheer throughput of a dedicated GPU, leaving it again, in no man's land. Even at that, on a PC, which is the easiest to develop for, games still have one main thread, with other cores being used 25-50% at most. Again, that leans towards the xbox with it's 3 general purpose CPU's and massive throughput GPU.

In theory, you're right, if someone spent enough time at it, and had a suitable application, then they might be able to squeeze some more theoretical performance out of the PS3, however, developers are still getting their heads around multi core and how to take advantage of it, most are waiting on a good programming language or library to do it, and that will probably turn out to be F# (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_programming_language). So you reckon MS will make a cell compiler?

johnny_ultimate

A further significant point to remember is the trendy nature of the Wii i.e. 'the Ipod effect'. Looking at the Xbox and Wii sitting here, the latter is a far prettier machine, and the simplicity and slickness of it would compensate many over the technical shortcomings in comparison to the others (in much the same way the Ipod is fashionable over other, sometimes superior, music players). While this is a minor point - I would still argue that the motion controlling and accessible software such as Wii Sports or Fit are more significant USPs - it is a little more evidence that points towards Nintendo working the market themselves, with a little help from Microsoft as well;).

I think the next generation of consoles will be interesting to say the least. With Sony and Microsoft already trying to make their consoles more accessible - look at Home and the NXE (perhaps the biggest sign of the Wiification of the industry on the whole on sheer blatantness alone - if imitation is flattery, than Miamyoto and co must be positively glowing looking at Xbox avatars) for two recent and pretty telling examples - will this process continue? Will the next generation be fully motion controlled (hopefully not - the joypad is such a wonderful creation it should never be killed off)? Sony in particular I imagine will consider a complete revamp, considering the difficulties the company as a whole is facing (and unfortunately 20 million sales and 3rd place is considered a failure in the harsh world of hardware wars).

Where it will get interesting is to see if Nintendo will retain the lead - with the problems of the Wii (such as the relatively slim top class software availability) becoming more apparent to early buyers. I think Nintendo if anything will be successful on brand loyalty, having built up a significant userbase with the DS and Wii. Microsoft and Sony on the other hand are harder to be completely loyal to. I think the perceived problems of the Wii aren't as significant to the wider market as it would be to long term gamers, and with stuff like Wii Motion Plus they are heading towards more stable hardware with superior performance to the Wiimote (and you have to give it credit - it is only the first generation of a pretty significant reform). But just like the outcome of this generation so far has been fairly unpredictable at times, I'd say the really big surprises have yet to arrive.

GothPunk

astrofool wrote: »

So you reckon MS will make a cell compiler?

Well I'm not sure what processor they'll choose (or have chosen/are having developed) but I guess I was just suggesting that the PS3 might have a longer life-span than the 360 and that the PS3 might begin to have more in common with future PC developments. With what the RRoD has illustrated is that Microsoft rushed out a product to be first out the door which cost them when they had to give everyone 3-year extended warranties and hurt the 'Xbox' brand. Microsoft were probably always going to have a shorter life cycle anyway, although whether they'll want to be first out the door next time around remains to be seen.

However, as a PC software leader, obviously thay will have to adapt to changes in hardware, but yeah I doubt Microsoft would foot the bill for a Cell compiler that would benefit such a large competitor. Hell for all we know 'Cell Mk II' for Xbox 1080 is already in early development :pac: With what's going on with multi-core processors in development, I'm sure we will see something happen, be it Microsoft or someone else. Maybe Sony and Microsoft will become best friends and double-team Nintendo

Besides, the PS3, Wii and 360 CPUs are developed by IBM, who seem to be sticking with the Cell processor, or at least an architecture similar to the Cell. I also remember reading somewhere (Kotaku probably) that the Cell processor (or an updated variant) will be used in the PS4, which would mean that Sony's development costs for the PS4 would be reduced. If the next generation of HD consoles also have processors developed by IBM, I guess a Cell based or similar architecture is possible, even for Microsoft and Nintendo.

I know we all want to hang on to x86 architecture, but I think it's nice and interesting to see people give something new a shot, even if it might end up failing. IBM have put a lot of money into the Cell processor so I guess time will tell whether they push and get people to use it or not.

astrofool

GothPunk wrote: »

IBM have put a lot of money into the Cell processor so I guess time will tell whether they push and get people to use it or not.

Not quite, Sony put a lot of money into Cell, which IBM used to fund development of Microsoft's 360 CPU (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069467545545011.html)

I think any future version of Cell is going to have a lot more processors on it (30+ at least), and make up for it's shortcomings by being more general purpose, and having a lot more bandwidth available through a much larger cache, and improved memory controller.

I'd always have liked to see EPIC (Itanium) take off, there's a lot in it that would make it very suited to today's applications, and Intel has always been able to write the best compilers, just a pity it's so incompatible with anything out there today.

giggsy664

DeVore wrote: »

How does removing support for PS2 games drop its price? Was hardware required?

Sony would always have done a next gen console because as the capacity of graphics and power increased they would become concerned that they were allowing a competitor to steal a march on them, whether that competitor had a name or not. They might not have chosen the same period in history to kick things off but it was never going to stop with the PS2. I agree that they have contorted themselves out of recognition trying to compete with the XBox 360 and imho they have lost but perhaps they can maintain an uneasy duoply (?) with MS.
The awkward thing for both of them is that the Wii has discovered a rich vein of gamers who... shock horror.... want to play games. With their mates. Like games mostly were when they were on a board

I have a Wii and it gets little play cos the controllers are pants, lets face it. Its like trying to control something while very drunk. But without the fun bit of actually BEING drunk. The games arent great, but its the way you play them with your mates (usually, ironically, while drunk).
"LIVE" is saving the xboxs ass. Sony must be tearing their hair out that its still tenaciously competing with them because the longer it goes on, the closer MS get to whatever is going to follow the 360.

Mozilla owned 90% of the browser market. Now IE is the standard.

Novell owned 90% of the network server market. Now its NT/whatever.

Vax/unix owned 90% of the server market and MS is busy taking what it can of that (if it werent for a concerted push of very clever people giving their time for free, they'd have walked it already).

When they first announced the xbox, PS2 was completely dominant, one gen later we are wondering if anything can stand against them and even Nintendo better make the most of this fortunate vein of sales they have found because they wont be allowed to have it to themselves for long.

DeV.

US/Jap launch PS3's had emotion engines and ps2 GPU's.

EU 60/80 GB models had hardware emulation.

noodler

Is ps2 BC something Sony can honestly release as a firmware update?
Surely that is beyond them?

GothPunk

noodler wrote: »

Is ps2 BC something Sony can honestly release as a firmware update?
Surely that is beyond them?

Speaking as someone with limited knowledge of Cell architecture - sure why the hell not :pac:

I think the general rule for emulating consoles is that you need a system that is about 5 times faster than the architecture that you're trying to emulate. PS2 emulation on the PC has only recently actually reached parity (so you're talking 2.4Ghz processor, 2-4GB RAM and a really beefy graphics card to run the game well on PCSX2). Even then a lot of games don't even work at all. Is the PS3 5-6 times more powerful than the PS2? Perhaps it is.

However, seeing as how full software emulation of PS2 games wasn't included in the first place with the PS3 we can make two guesses: Perhaps full software PS2 BC is simply not possible and cannot be done without the Emotion Engine CPU; or maybe Sony just doesn't have the money to spend on developing it.

Perhaps in the future when Sony start making money on the PS3 they might consider researching a PS2 BC firmware update, it could gain them sales by making it easier for people with a PS2 to make the jump to PS3. Maybe they'll even re-introduce the Emotion Engine CPU in the PS3-Slim if full software BC is indeed impossible. I just don't know if it's worth the hassle for them.

With all that considered, I'm so glad I have a 60GB PS3

giggsy664

Afaik, the USA store has a 7 MG download for ps2 BC. I'm probably way wrong here, but its on the store. Check in "Media"

Its probably not for BC but still.

(And btw, it won't let you play your us ps2 games on your 60GB eu ps3)

@ GP: I my 60 120 GB PS3. Did you get yours launch day?

GothPunk

giggsy664 wrote: »

Afaik, the USA store has a 7 MG download for ps2 BC. I'm probably way wrong here, but its on the store. Check in "Media"

Its probably not for BC but still.

(And btw, it won't let you play your us ps2 games on your 60GB eu ps3)

@ GP: I my 60 120 GB PS3. Did you get yours launch day?

Yeah I have that lil PS2 download, it's just the PS2 'System Data' that let's you play PS2 games online through your PS3 (provided you have the Network Setup Disc or whatever it's called as well).

I bought my PS3 second hand on Adverts.ie about 6 months ago. Now with 320GB hard drive My first console since the NES as well *ah bless*

giggsy664

Huh? Nice.

Got mine for €700 w Motorstorm and Ridge 7 on April 11 2007