PS3 General Discussion

[Solid Lifters]

More talk about the PS3 lasting for 10 years.

Nvidia CEO: PlayStation 3 Will 'Last Ten Years'
In a recent interview, San Jose Mercury News journalist Dean Takahashi spoke with Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang regarding a variety of topics, not the least of which concerned his thoughts on the company's focus, its entry into the video game market with the Xbox, as well as the executive's feelings regarding the PlayStation 3.

Looking back at Nvidia's relationship with Microsoft in developing chips for the original Xbox, Huang commented that he always felt that Nvidia's work in the video game console market was “inevitable.”

“We invest $750 million a year in R&D in graphics processing,” said Huang. “No other company invests that much in graphics processing today. This is such an incredibly deep technology and there is so much more to do. It makes sense that in the long-term we would work on game consoles as well.”

Focusing on the PlayStation 3, specifically regarding Huang's thoughts on Nvidia's choice to develop chips for and support Sony's upcoming next-generation console platform, he simply commented that no company “has enough extraneous resources around to build chips for all the game consoles,” and that due to the high stakes involved with the video game console market, a company like Nvidia must maintain its focus.

“Sony picked us and Microsoft didn't,” he added. “I don't think that working with Sony is wrong. There is no way that is going to be wrong. There are many wonderful things that Sony did. I'm excited that they made Blu-ray high-definition storage as a standard part of the PlayStation 3 platform.”

When asked approached on his thoughts on the price of the PlayStation 3 console, which expected to ship in November at a cost upwards of $599, Huang seemed undaunted, noting that the PlayStation 2 launched in Japan in 2000 for $399. “If you use inflation, it's the same price, approximately,” he noted. “The important thing is you cannot announce a game console for the next ten years and not have Blu-Ray. It's an impossible scenario. I think they got that perspective right. The moment we put those consoles together it's going to be very clear. If I'm going to buy a next-generation game console, I'm going to buy a console with next-generation media. It's going to last 10 years.”

Finally, regarding the company's focus, the Nvidia executive noted that the firm's primary goal remains to “advance the GPU.” Huang added: “We don't participate in all parts of the PC industry. We focus on market niches where we can add value. In the other markets, we are connected to the PowerPC/Cell microprocessor in the PlayStation 3. In handhelds, we are connected to SH microprocessors, Arm microprocessors. For embedded applications, we are connected to PowerPCs and what not. Our focus is the GPU. With respect to the CPU, we try to be as agnostic as we can. We focus on the marketplace.”

POSTED: 10.00AM PST, 07/24/06 - Jason Dobson - LINK

 

[Jedi2016]

I think this has to be explained in more depth to be understood.

The tilt function of the PS3 is not the deciding factor for having rumble or not. The true "interference" comes from the sensor that picks up on translational acceleration. You can look it up, it's a physics term, basically it means that the sensor is capable of picking up the changes of force from one direction to another (i.e. up down left and right)

With vibration, you pose the risk of damaging, interference, or reducing the functionality of said features.

However, with simple gyroscopic functions, vibration does not interfere as much, since gravity is the driving force for this sensor (unlike translational acceleration, where motion is the driving force for the sensor, hence vibration poses the possibility to interfere).

I still say there ought to be a switch.. either on the controller, or in the game options, to use either rumble or tilt.

 

[slackbladder]

The important thing is you cannot announce a game console for the next ten years and not have Blu-Ray. It's an impossible scenario. I think they got that perspective right.

I agree with that. Ten years may be pushing it a little. 6 or 7 maybe closer to the truth but I get what he's saying. That's the weakness of the 360. Sure therre's a HD-DVD add on but as a whole in 5 years time the 360 will be out of date (unless they produce a 360 with a built-in HD-DVD drive). It could be less than 5 years and Microsoft will have to replace it. I probably won't get another console for a good 6 years once I have the PS3. Maybe even longer. But I see it being around until 2013 at least.

 

[Jedi2016]

They're talking about overall lifetime, not the "generation gap". PS1 was supported years after PS2 launched, just as PS2 will be supported for years after PS3 launches. Thus, the "extended" lifetime. The PS4 will probably be out five or six years after PS3, but PS3 will continue to be supported.

 

[DuckRacer]

They're talking about overall lifetime, not the "generation gap". PS1 was supported years after PS2 launched, just as PS2 will be supported for years after PS3 launches. Thus, the "extended" lifetime. The PS4 will probably be out five or six years after PS3, but PS3 will continue to be supported.

Yeah, I mean look at the original Xbox. When the 360 was released, MS cut all support for it, and looking for a headset and Xbox Live subscription was a pain in the butt. It makes you happy that your old systems aren't automatically killed off.

 

[slackbladder]

And the PS4 will use Blu-ray. But what if it's a flop and HD-DVD "wins"? A PS4 with HD-DVD? I guess Sony will have to keep on producing BD-Roms for the PS3 regardless of the media for the PS4 in 2012/13 etc.

 

[YSSMAN]

I can't imagine anyone seriously leaving a PS3 on their shelf for ten years as the competition would change so drastically in that ammount of time. The average cycle for a console is what, five years now? By the time ten years roll around, we would theoretically be through another two XBOXes and Nintendos...

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

I can't imagine anyone seriously leaving a PS3 on their shelf for ten years as the competition would change so drastically in that ammount of time. The average cycle for a console is what, five years now? By the time ten years roll around, we would theoretically be through another two XBOXes and Nintendos...

It's not a matter of someone owning one for 10 years, that is not the point.

In 3rd world countries and people who are below the middle class, owning a new console immediately is not an option.

Thus, in 4 years time, there will be people who will pick up a PS3 for the first time. These people will have many titles that they wish to play, used or new. However, at this time, the PS3 will be at the end of it's first stage life cycle. This is the time when new consoles are released, and other people will purchase them, however, there is still the installed user base that will stick with the PS3 for another 3 years until the price of said new console drops.

This was the case with the PS1 as well, and will more than likely be the case for the PS2, and PS3 in the future.

Keeping the life cycle at 10 years will ensure profit, as production will be low.

So, with that said, this 10 year life cycle is not one of one console, just the expected profitable time frame in which this console will be supported.

 

[Tenacious D]

There's another thing to consider, the fact that the PS3 may well be the first upgradeable console, much like a PC.

I speculated about this a couple of months or so ago and was met with ridicule, since almost no upgradeable consoles survived. The TurboGrafix-16 and Sega Genesis were the only two systems with a viable upgrade path, while all others fell by the wayside. However, word from Sony is that, indeed the PS3 will be designed like a computer. In fact, designed AS a computer, including a modular, upgradeable architecture, so that at some point if you choose, you can get larger hard drives and more ram.

If they have an upgradeable motherboard and NVidia GPU, there may never be a need for a PS4+.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

As far as I know, the only upgradeable features on the PS3 consist of the HDD and USB add ons. Nothing else is upgradeable on the system.

 

[Sprite]

A new Untold Legends vid up for grabs over at gametrailers.

LINK

 

[fasj6418]

It's not a matter of someone owning one for 10 years, that is not the point.

In 3rd world countries and people who are below the middle class, owning a new console immediately is not an option.

Thus, in 4 years time, there will be people who will pick up a PS3 for the first time. These people will have many titles that they wish to play, used or new. However, at this time, the PS3 will be at the end of it's first stage life cycle. This is the time when new consoles are released, and other people will purchase them, however, there is still the installed user base that will stick with the PS3 for another 3 years until the price of said new console drops.

This was the case with the PS1 as well, and will more than likely be the case for the PS2, and PS3 in the future.

Keeping the life cycle at 10 years will ensure profit, as production will be low.

So, with that said, this 10 year life cycle is not one of one console, just the expected profitable time frame in which this console will be supported.

right. people here are just stating to get popular with the PS2... of course, we have since 2000, but now its going mainstream. i only got mine in 2004. just didn´t had money before. this time, i hopt to get my PS3 before 2008

 

[Dave A]

They were talking about upgradable RAM at some point.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

They were talking about upgradable RAM at some point.

The system must have this functionality built in from the get go. I can see maybe in their next console release having upgradable features like this, but with the PS3 it isn't built in, so it isn't an option.

The only way, however, that I can see this happening, is if Sony released a newer model in the future, that either had more RAM, or had the ability to upgrade it. I don't think this is possible, however.

 

[YSSMAN]

So the PS3 won't be adaptable at all?

Hmmm, thats odd. I seem to recall the 360 having extra PCI slots in case they decide to do a signifigant upgrade in the future.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

So the PS3 won't be adaptable at all?

Hmmm, thats odd. I seem to recall the 360 having extra PCI slots in case they decide to do a signifigant upgrade in the future.

Not correct. The 360 doesn't feature any PCI slots to begin with. It's architecture is extremely different than a PC, and PCI is way too slow to handle what the 360 is capable of.

The GPU and CPU are both directly on the system board, thus increasing bandwidth between all devices, to include memory.

 

[YSSMAN]

Damnit, my damn head is filled with too much crap to remember anything these days. I seem to recall the dude saying the 360 was going to be expandable in the "Making of the 360" video from G4...

Oh well, I'd rather have my memory filled with car stuff in most cases...

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Damnit, my damn head is filled with too much crap to remember anything these days. I seem to recall the dude saying the 360 was going to be expandable in the "Making of the 360" video from G4...

Oh well, I'd rather have my memory filled with car stuff in most cases...

Well, it is expandable in the sense that you can add USB add ons, and HDD upgrades are available, with Wi-Fi adapters available as well, which would qualify it as "expandable". But any internal hardware expansions do not exist, as MS specifically states in their manual that opening the console voids warranty, and it is impossible for them to release a product that would void the warranty.

 

[Tornado]

In addition, any update released by Microsoft would fail miserably, as nearly all console add-ons do.
A question though: As all PS3's will come with a HDD, couldn't Sony release updates to push the current hardware further, like Dirext X on PC's?

 

[Solid Lifters]

PS3 News This Past Week

Comments made by nVidia chief executive Jen-Hsun Huang have illustrated Sony's desperation to get its PlayStation 3 launch plans back on track, with the graphics card manufacturer lavishing praise on its one remaining home console partner.

Speaking to the San Jose Mercury News, Huang, an oft-outspoken executive, took an opportunity to outline nVidia's take on Sony's launch plans, hinting that the PlayStation 3 was indeed originally slated to hit retail many months earlier than the end of 2006 slot it now targets.

Speaking about the partnership with Sony and on nVidia's notoriously hostile shareholders' unease with the PlayStation 3 project, Huang said, "I don't think that working with Sony is wrong. There is no way that is going to be wrong. There are many wonderful things that Sony did. I'm excited that they made Blu-ray high-definition storage as a standard part of the PlayStation 3 platform."

He continued, "To postpone it by a few months so they could include Blu-ray was a master stroke. When that comes out, it's going to look so much more advanced than last-generation game consoles. I think that was a wonderful call on their part." Which is something of an interesting take, given the machine was always going to use Blu-ray, Sony launching its new home console sans disc drive wasn't ever going to happen. How not launching a console without a disc drive is seen as a 'master stroke' is somewhat beyond us.

Moving on, this is likely to be the first of many opportunities Sony will seek to take in the coming months to reinvigorate its somewhat battered PR machine. The PlayStation 3, although still the ****-hot topic in the games industry, has suffered endless rounds of bad press and seen lower than expected levels of anticipation amongst fans.

This would be all well and good. The problem being that the PlayStation 3 is likely going to be the best traditional games machine on the market in a year's time. The scope of the project, based on the promises of Sony executives made over the past five years, is massive. The PS3's potential to deliver a new level of high-definition gaming is simply staggering, far outstripping the comparatively modest plans of Microsoft's Xbox 360.

It's also worthy of note that the tone of the current environment for the PlayStation 3 launch is less than favourable, arguably for no reasons beyond the facts that Sony has under-delivered in the past, is faced with an American and European fan-base of 360 owners and has made a few ill-considered steps at and since E3. Aware of this, Sony will be stepping up its PR activities massively in the coming months, with the highest level becoming involved in the hard-sell element pre-launch. As SPOnG reported recently, Ken Kutaragi will be keynoting this year's Tokyo Game Show, replacing Nintendo president Satoru Iwata as headline act at what will be the last major international platform Sony will have to highlight its wares to an unnervingly sceptical market.

The good news is that Sony fans can confidently expect to be wowed at TGS and with teasers Sony is no doubt planning in the coming weeks. Keep all eyes pointed SPOnGwards for news, opinion and comment.

http://spong.com/article/10451/nVidia+Lavished+Praise+on+PlayStation+3.+Delay+now+'Masterstroke%22?cb=994

 

[Duke]

Moving on, this is likely to be the first of many opportunities Sony will seek to take in the coming months to reinvigorate its somewhat battered PR machine. The PlayStation 3, although still the ****-hot topic in the games industry, has suffered endless rounds of bad press and seen lower than expected levels of anticipation amongst fans.

And therein lies the problem with this whole process. For the most part, the PS3 (or any console for that matter) is getting a lot of bad press simply because it's getting a lot of bad press. All of these industry reporters sitting around with their thumbs up their butts, scrounging for scraps of real information, generate a feedback loop that can be quite self-perpetuating.

 

[fasj6418]

the PS3 is only getting bad press because of its price. if it was 400 instead of 600, then everybody would be all crazy about the console. other than the price, there´s nothing really bad to talk about the PS3...

also, i was reading through some old magazines and i found a lot of similarites with the way the press treated the dreamcast (just like the 360 now). but then of course, ever since i saw peter moore and i started to add up the factors, i believe the 360 can (not saying it will, but...) have the same destiny as the dreamcast... maybe the situation changes a bit because of the so talked price, but once people realize that nobody is buying the tard pack of the 360, and that the 500 dollars is a complete PS3, then it will be clear the fact that the difference is only 100 dollars

 

[Swift]

the PS3 is only getting bad press because of its price. if it was 400 instead of 600, then everybody would be all crazy about the console. other than the price, there´s nothing really bad to talk about the PS3...

also, i was reading through some old magazines and i found a lot of similarites with the way the press treated the dreamcast (just like the 360 now). but then of course, ever since i saw peter moore and i started to add up the factors, i believe the 360 can (not saying it will, but...) have the same destiny as the dreamcast... maybe the situation changes a bit because of the so talked price, but once people realize that nobody is buying the tard pack of the 360, and that the 500 dollars is a complete PS3, then it will be clear the fact that the difference is only 100 dollars

I found an old Next Generation magazine that had a story on the cover, "The PS2, too hard to develop for?" Yeah...it sure is. Not that it was false reporting. Just that going into these things it always seems to be harder, worse or more challenging then it really is.

So, I agree. If it wasn't for the price, the PS3 would be the most positively spun video game console in 10 years. It eclipses the PS2 and Xbox360. But that price(that mom's and dad's see, not the gamers) is what's bringing the buzz down.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Third-party support is crucial for any gaming console, and Sony says it's already hitting new milestones in that field with the yet-to-be-released PlayStation 3.

Sony reps told GameSpot that with almost four months left until the PS3's worldwide launch, it has already shipped out more than 10,000 PS3 development kits. That's more than the total number of development systems for any other PlayStation platform, according to the publisher. As for who is working with those kits, Sony said it shipped them out to 208 companies in 11 different countries--also all-time highs for the PlayStation brand.

Sony's mass SDK push puts it in a good position for the PS3's November debut, according to Epic Games' Mark Rein. In an interview with Eurogamer, he mentioned that developers were beginning to receive finished PS3 hardware around the time of the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2006 in May. Though that might seem late, Rein said Sony was ahead of where its archrival Microsoft was the previous year, pointing out that developers did not have finished Xbox 360 SDKs at E3 2005.

Not all bad news.

 

[Mr Deap]

I found an old Next Generation magazine that had a story on the cover, "The PS2, too hard to develop for?" Yeah...it sure is. Not that it was false reporting. Just that going into these things it always seems to be harder, worse or more challenging then it really is.

So, I agree. If it wasn't for the price, the PS3 would be the most positively spun video game console in 10 years. It eclipses the PS2 and Xbox360. But that price(that mom's and dad's see, not the gamers) is what's bringing the buzz down.

The PS3 have a better Dev kit. Though as you know, the machine is like 15 times more powerful. & games don't eat 32MB of ram, but more like 256mb at once. So creating maps & doing the vectors for the polygons are a lot longer, not to mention animation that is much more detailled & have to be created too. Games require art talent. But new console take more work. Even an XBOX 360 game take longer to make than a PS2 game. It's not really about hard, but how long it takes to make a game. Time = money.

 

[YSSMAN]

As I understood it, it is quite easy to develop 360 titles in comparison to the PS3, but they never said anything in comparison to current-gen platforms. Given the 360 is baisically a PC and has that whole "XNA" thing going on, it doesn't seem as though it would be too hard to create games for it, especially when many of them are either ported or co-developed with a PC title.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Mr Deap - Actually the brute of video game development in current and next generation titles comes from programming the engine and working out those kinks.

Artistic development comes a dime a dozen these days, as modeling technology is FAR beyond what it used to be. Many games now rely more on scluptures for their modeling than traditional methods. The process is a lot like this:

Concept artists are given "ideas" of what they producers want.

They then go and make dozens upon dozens of concept drawings and interpretations of their own.

The producer will then choose the one he likes most.

This is then turned into a "sculpture" most of the time, and then scanned by cameras recording the differences in light and distance from the camera, and an extremely high polygon model is built from these pictures and scans. Textures are then made, applied, and finally, the model is put into the engine.

The most complicated part comes with the engine, when you have to code the physics, the collisoins, the AI, etc.

Then getting all of these elements to work together, at a steady and stable frame rate is what takes up the largest part of development. Finding out where you can sacrifice polygons on certain models, where you need to cut back on effects, objects, enemies, etc. This is what takes the longest to develop a game, not the art or animation.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

As I understood it, it is quite easy to develop 360 titles in comparison to the PS3, but they never said anything in comparison to current-gen platforms. Given the 360 is baisically a PC and has that whole "XNA" thing going on, it doesn't seem as though it would be too hard to create games for it, especially when many of them are either ported or co-developed with a PC title.

Well, the reason that the 360 is extensively easy to develop for is because it's development kit is not "drastically" different from that of previous SDK tools, and PC SDK tools. MS has provided a lot of "automated" functions that generate certain actions, models, etc. Basically they have provided a great development platform to reduct the amount of time used in development by the use of automated actions and programs.

However, if developers chose to create their physics engines, visual engines, etc etc, then development time is comparable to other consoles etc.

 

[Tornado]

I've read rumors that the 360 (and the original Xbox before it) still use a pumped-up variation of the developers engine that the Dreamcast used, and that was said to be the easiest console to develop for ever (and it explains why many of the final Dreamcast games were just ported to the original XBox in near perfect form).

Even an XBOX 360 game take longer to make than a PS2 game.

Well there is a reason for that. The Xbox 360 is new. The PS2 has been out for 6 years. When it first came out, many developers were in a jam because of the rediculous amount of time it took to port games from the equally powerful Dreamcast to the PS2 (that's one of the main reasons the Sonic Adventure series never ended up on the PS2, aside form it's inferiority in a couple key places when compared to the Dreamcast). The Emotion Engine's architexture is said to be very hard for smaller companies to use. Most ports fot the PS2 just use some sort of renderware. The 360 is designed so any game that can be ported to the PC can also be ported to it, which is why many companies that don't usually port games to the PC are running into problems with it.

 

[Mr Deap]

I've read rumors that the 360 (and the original Xbox before it) still use a pumped-up variation of the developers engine that the Dreamcast used, and that was said to be the easiest console to develop for ever (and it explains why many of the final Dreamcast games were just ported to the original XBox in near perfect form).

Well there is a reason for that. The Xbox 360 is new. The PS2 has been out for 6 years. When it first came out, many developers were in a jam because of the rediculous amount of time it took to port games from the equally powerful Dreamcast to the PS2 (that's one of the main reasons the Sonic Adventure series never ended up on the PS2, aside form it's inferiority in a couple key places when compared to the Dreamcast). The Emotion Engine's architexture is said to be very hard for smaller companies to use. Most ports fot the PS2 just use some sort of renderware. The 360 is designed so any game that can be ported to the PC can also be ported to it, which is why many companies that don't usually port games to the PC are running into problems with it.

You sure that the PS2 was equally powerful as the DC. So far, I find the DC a bit more powerful than the PS2 overall.


Shenhua in Shenmue.

Though, the PS2 got much more cooler games & peripherals.