But just saying "a browser" isn't really showing that one will be supplied. Who is working on one? Which distro of Linux will we supposedly see? Open Ofice won't work on the Cell. Neither will any other program. They have to be ported over. Look at everything Apple had to do to make that possible. No one knows whether Sony has been writing such software. Sony has been known for rather poor software development.
Even if you think that OO will be ported, how long would it take? THe new 2 version isn't even available on the Mac as yet. Neither is ver. 1.1.5! And the Mac certainly has vastly more possible users than the PS3 will have.
It's not just a compile away. Have you seen the compiler? Sony isn't even done with the tools necessary to get games finished.
People who might use this won't be using a computer monitor, as I said. They will be using a TV - just the way ALL PS2's are being used. This will be either in the living room or in a family room, for those who have one. No one is going to buy a cheap 17" monitor to play PS 3 games on. People would laugh them to death.
If you think a crappy TV is going to have high enough resolution, think again.
This is all pie in the sky.
1. The difficulties in using the compiler will all be centered around the vector units, the control unit is a regular processor. The vector units would not initially be used by the web browsing (etc) software. This is not very hard stuff, I personally have undertaken much more challanging programming problems than changing the code generation part of a compiler to produce a different opcode set (the hard part of writing a compiler is not the code generation).
2. The port of OO to the mac is done by an open source team with much fewer resources than Sony - and linux->mac is harder than linux->linux.
3. Sony put a browser on their PSP, and you think that they won't put one on their PS3?
4. People will use the PS3 in all kind of configurations - if my computer replacement predictions come true, I will probably buy 4 or 5 of them, and some will be used with 20" or 24" computer flatscreen monitors.
5. Any HDTV that supports 1080p is high enough resolution for computer use (and 1080p will be more and more common into the future, I have a CRT front projector capible of this already, and I bought it for $1400 on ebay).
wow mel where do you get your info from? sony lost billions with the ps2, billions. this is microsofts first launch and it did very well besides japan. no people do not prefer to code for the ps2, they did so cuz of the brand and the popularity.
i dont understand what you consider a dissapointment? xbox is levels above playstation in the online gaming scene. besides what a lot of hardcore single player gamers out there say the online capability is where the future of gaming is headed and microsoft is in the front seat at this point.
if there is one thing i've learned about this industry is that NO ONE really knows what they are doing 100 percent of the time. its apparent from obvious mistakes from every single gaming company from nintendo-microsoft.
a company like nintendo that has been around forever still makes mistakes and you're going to consider the xbox a dissapointment? incredible.
playstation has had 2 successful consoles which (ps2) was very fortunate to come out on top (mainly because of the dvd rom) cuz people quickly forget the problems they had in the beginning of that consoles life cycle.
the one thing i can say is micorsoft hsould have put an HD player in their ssytem. it was dumb not to do it and i really dont know why they didn't (yes it keeps costs down). if it was me i wouldve done the hd-dvd player standard, the harddrive an option
Sony is going to lose HUGE on the ps3. lets not even mention what if blu-ray doesn't go through then they are crushed.
there is a significant amount of time before we can even assume who wins this battle (hd-dvd or blu-ray) anyone can jump the fence at any time. the launch for the 360 can sway key players.
i cant wait to see whats going to come out of 2007
I've sold computers for over 10 yrs. The PS3 is NO threat end of story. Things get even harder when you're talking about Vista and TCPA. Linux will get there but slowly.
Building the PS3 up to more than what it really is smacks of blatant foolishness. It's a game console with some extra functions built in. Sony is not an OS vendor nor will you have a fully functional API for the PS3 that would cover much more than web browsing and email.
It's built for highend 3D work and a bit of movie playback. It's not a home computer in the traditional sense.
1. The difficulties in using the compiler will all be centered around the vector units, the control unit is a regular processor. The vector units would not initially be used by the web browsing (etc) software. This is not very hard stuff, I personally have undertaken much more challanging programming problems than changing the code generation part of a compiler to produce a different opcode set (the hard part of writing a compiler is not the code generation).
2. The port of OO to the mac is done by an open source team with much fewer resources than Sony - and linux->mac is harder than linux->linux.
3. Sony put a browser on their PSP, and you think that they won't put one on their PS3?
4. People will use the PS3 in all kind of configurations - if my computer replacement predictions come true, I will probably buy 4 or 5 of them, and some will be used with 20" or 24" computer flatscreen monitors.
5. Any HDTV that supports 1080p is high enough resolution for computer use (and 1080p will be more and more common into the future, I have a CRT front projector capible of this already, and I bought it for $1400 on ebay).
It has nothing to do with the Linux-Mac. It has to do with the Linux PPC or x86 to Cell.
They did put a browser on the PS2, but we don't know if this will have an HD, and it sounds as though this is a dependent upon that.
The people who woulf be the logical customer wouldn't be buying 4 or 5. They would be doing this because they would be getting a game machine and a computer of sorts in one cheap unit. No 20" or 24" flat screen monitors for them.
Even $1400 is far too expensive for most people. You are technical hobbyest. Most of us on these threads are too, to a greater or lesser extent. Most people can't even change a battery.
I don't suppose that you are here on Appleinsider writing this on your PS2 keyboard? If not, then you are one of those few hobbyests I was talking about who MIGHT want one of those things. You can count the number of people who used the PS2 for this on one hand. I know dozens of people who have one (including us) and none of them have done this.
wow mel where do you get your info from? sony lost billions with the ps2, billions. this is microsofts first launch and it did very well besides japan. no people do not prefer to code for the ps2, they did so cuz of the brand and the popularity.
i dont understand what you consider a dissapointment? xbox is levels above playstation in the online gaming scene. besides what a lot of hardcore single player gamers out there say the online capability is where the future of gaming is headed and microsoft is in the front seat at this point.
if there is one thing i've learned about this industry is that NO ONE really knows what they are doing 100 percent of the time. its apparent from obvious mistakes from every single gaming company from nintendo-microsoft.
a company like nintendo that has been around forever still makes mistakes and you're going to consider the xbox a dissapointment? incredible.
playstation has had 2 successful consoles which (ps2) was very fortunate to come out on top (mainly because of the dvd rom) cuz people quickly forget the problems they had in the beginning of that consoles life cycle.
the one thing i can say is micorsoft hsould have put an HD player in their ssytem. it was dumb not to do it and i really dont know why they didn't (yes it keeps costs down). if it was me i wouldve done the hd-dvd player standard, the harddrive an option
Sony is going to lose HUGE on the ps3. lets not even mention what if blu-ray doesn't go through then they are crushed.
there is a significant amount of time before we can even assume who wins this battle (hd-dvd or blu-ray) anyone can jump the fence at any time. the launch for the 360 can sway key players.
i cant wait to see whats going to come out of 2007
Where do you get yours from?
Sony has made billions on the PS2. Two thirds of their profit has come from it. They have been relying on the PS2 for several years for profits.
Just read any financial journal, or go to Forbes on the web. This is well known.
I don't know anyone who has thought that the games for the X Box were superior in any significant way. Programmers have said that programming on the PS2 was not hard once they got used to it.
Sony's online games have also done much better in numbers of players than anything MS have been doing.
And yes, I say the X Box is a disappointment because MS was expecting to make money with it, and they have lost billions instead.
Can you name even one other company that would still be producing it after having lost over $1 billion in the first year alone? I can't think of any.
The only reason Sony is still making money is because of their Playstation division. It has most certainly not been a loss for them. I don't think even Microsoft is a in a net loss position on XBox at this point.
The PS3 (or XBox360 for that matter) is not a competitor for the desktop or laptop PC (including Mac) -- but it is a competitor for the Media Center PC. Microsoft wants that market, and a lot of hardware companies want it to. The PC market pales in comparison to the market of everyone who has a TV but doesn't have the ultimate media center device (i.e. everyone with a TV).
The PC desktop market isn't really growing anymore, it is operating primarily on replacement purchases... and in case you hadn't noticed the motivation to upgrade in the last couple of years has dropped off markedly because the chip companies have hit a clockrate wall and the easy performance wins are coming much slower and much less dramatically. Laptops are selling like crazy because they have become much more compelling with wireless everywhere and decent performing low power CPU & GPUs. I don't see the PC market going away, but its importance is going to be a lot less than it has been in the past.
And as for the fixed hardware configuration of the PS3, this is typically an advantage for the market(s) it is aimed at. There is an interesting feature of the Cell architecture that most people seem to have missed, however: for the first time a game console has a chip architecture that lends itself extremely well to scalability. In 3 years Sony could release an updated PS3 that simply has more vector processors, but remains fully compatible with the existing one. In fact, if done right, software created for the first version will automatically run better on later versions (i.e. 60 fps instead of 30 fps... and if you think all PS3 games will be 60 fps, dream on).
mel teh fact that you'll sit here and tell me that you donjt know anyone who thought xbox games were superior to playstation games is just stating that you obviously just dislike the machine.
how about telling that to the millions who bought halo, splinter cell, max payne, games that couldn't even run on a playstation 2 without incredible load times.
yes you put it perfectly programmers dont mind coding for ps2 after getting used to it.... 4 years? damn thats a long time, i to believe ps2 would be easy to program for after that amount of time haha.
you're words exactly covered what i was saying before about how the PS3 is just showing "hopeful" images of what it wants to do cuz why? programmers have a hard time coding for a hard system at first and get better with time.
I don't think even Microsoft is a in a net loss position on XBox at this point.
I would agree with everything except for that. MS lost $1 billion their last financial year in their games division, attributed almost entirely to the X Box and software.
Actually, to be truthful, last year Sony's games division didn't do that well either, but nothing like that.
mel teh fact that you'll sit here and tell me that you donjt know anyone who thought xbox games were superior to playstation games is just stating that you obviously just dislike the machine.
how about telling that to the millions who bought halo, splinter cell, max payne, games that couldn't even run on a playstation 2 without incredible load times.
yes you put it perfectly programmers dont mind coding for ps2 after getting used to it.... 4 years? damn thats a long time, i to believe ps2 would be easy to program for after that amount of time haha.
you're words exactly covered what i was saying before about how the PS3 is just showing "hopeful" images of what it wants to do cuz why? programmers have a hard time coding for a hard system at first and get better with time.
I admit that I don't play games that much now, but I do have both.
One of the problems that MS has faced is that crossover games (ones that are on both platforms) are almost EXACTLY alike. That's by design. The X Box only games might, at times, be slightly better in some aspects, but not by much. The playability of both systems is about the same.
And programmers have been saying that for several years, not just now. It sounds like you dislike the PS2.
Just like MS was showing "hopeful" much critisized images last year. So, what's new? After all the PS2 outsold the X Box by four to one.
Sony was simply able to get more and better games.
mel- you can make statements like "sony sold more" all day long.
you're in an apple forum making statements like that... think about it.
also, again
it was microsofts first console!!!!!!
japenese developers didn't come out in numbers to support the xbox unlike the 360.
the playstation already had a name set for itself. geesh man they even went up against nintendo thats a pretty tough competition and considering that i think the xbox did well.
mel- you can make statements like "sony sold more" all day long.
you're in an apple forum making statements like that... think about it.
also, again
it was microsofts first console!!!!!!
japenese developers didn't come out in numbers to support the xbox unlike the 360.
the playstation already had a name set for itself. geesh man they even went up against nintendo thats a pretty tough competition and considering that i think the xbox did well.
you're hard to please.
I realize where we are. But the PS 2 and three, as well as the XBox and the Gamecube and Revolution are all games. Games are better if more people buy them. Why? Because they are buying them because they like them. Not because they have to use them at work. Not because the original PC sold because it had IBM's initials on it.
Sony came from nowhere in the game business. It wasn't first by a long shot, not by 15 years or so. It sold because its games were much better than anything else at the time. The PS1 first sold for $650. It started to do really well after it came down to $500.
The XBox was highly anticipated. Everyone (including me) expected it to just blow the PS2 away. It didn't. It was a little better. It also had Halo. Without that it would have faded away, but that sold enough boxes for developers to become encouraged.
Despite MS saying that there would be 45 games available upon the 360's intro, it's expected that there will be, at most, 26.
But you just can't ignore the fact that it has lost so much money consistently. What would have happened if MS decided to price it and the games they make they way Sony did? That is, to have the games division make money?
Nobody would be buying it.
I'm not denying the numbers sold. I'm sure that BMW could sell a lot more cars if they priced them to match a Chevy or something at that level. But would they? Of course not.
MS knows that the box isn't so much better that they could convince gamers to buy it if it were priced 50% more. MS is subsidizing the people buying this, as well as the games they make. This is the point I'm making. You don't want to look at that.
Nintendo hasn't done that. They make a profit. I wonder what their sales would be if MS didn't sell their machines and games well below cost.
I'm sure that Sony could sell even more of these things if they sold them for $50. The games too.
The same thing seems to be happening again with the PS3, the 360, and the Revolution. Nintendo will price to make a good profit. Sony will price to make a smaller profit, and MS will price so that they lose large amounts of money. Though they have said that they "hope" to break even after the first year. They said that about the first one as well.
It's like Netscape vs Explorer. Explorer didn't do well until they gave it away.
Does that mean that Explorer really did well? It's that nobody can afford to compete with MS when they decide to really go for it. Who knows, maybe Sony and Nintendo will just give up if they start doing less well and then MS will be left. Then they can say that they did it fair and square. It only cost $15 billion in losses.
what are u talking about? if you dont "assume" sony will sell well or microsoft will sell well... if you go on the numbers this time around Playstation is actualy going to grossly undersell their system.
you know how much stuff they are trying to pack in that machine? A LOT , maybe more than they shoudl considering they have already cut back what was initially planned.
Microsoft did a lot of things right with the xbox, some of the things they did wrong?
too big of a controller
not enough japenese support
where do you get off saying microsoft doesn't have great games? lets consider this
sports games are covered by both consoles.
first person shooters microsoft owns
racing games a complete tie now since Froza motorsports
rpg the 360 just nabbed final fantasy
metal gear solid was matched up with splinter cell
the only area playstation still holds ground is with those small but unique titles. thats just cuz they've been around longer, created more partnerships.
you want to make an eye to eye comparison? consider hypothetically if microsoft released the xbox at the same time the ps2 came out. head to head with the games they released together at launch microsoft would have trampled the playstation just for the sheer fact of having halo as a launch title.
the ps2 had nothing at launch omg lol. no metal gear solid for a year, no GT for almost 2 years. like i've said before the ps2 did well initially strictly cuz of the dvd drive.
when the xbox launched playstation arleady had its place well set.
EDIT: nintendo F'd up the gamecube. there is virtually NO GAMES for the machine compared to the other 2. sure they had some good ones but the lack of selection really hurt it. profit or not that life cycle is considered a great dissapointment on nintendos part.
It has nothing to do with the Linux-Mac. It has to do with the Linux PPC or x86 to Cell.
I can't pretend to be an expert on the Cell, but I am not a "technical hobbiest", but a professional programmer with many years experience (including 4 years of compiler design).
I just don't see what you are going on about. An argument about the marketing of it, sure, or if anyone would use it like I said, sure - but you don't sound like you know what would be an easy or hard programming problem.
Given a compiler (which they will have) and a linux port (which they will also have), I could get the bundle working in a couple months (or a year if you count ergonomically perfect, and graphically pretty). Sony probably has 200-300 programmers like me working on the PS3.
Exlir - the 360 has 17 launch titles, the PS3 has over 100. If anything, the PS3 (from the looks of things so far) will dominate even more this generation than last. My favorite developer (snowblind) is going with the 360, but most are going with both or just the PS3.
I can't pretend to be an expert on the Cell, but I am not a "technical hobbiest", but a professional programmer with many years experience (including 4 years of compiler design).
I just don't see what you are going on about. An argument about the marketing of it, sure, or if anyone would use it like I said, sure - but you don't sound like you know what would be an easy or hard programming problem.
Given a compiler (which they will have) and a linux port (which they will also have), I could get the bundle working in a couple months (or a year if you count ergonomically perfect, and graphically pretty). Sony probably has 200-300 programmers like me working on the PS3.
Exlir - the 360 has 17 launch titles, the PS3 has over 100. If anything, the PS3 (from the looks of things so far) will dominate even more this generation than last. My favorite developer (snowblind) is going with the 360, but most are going with both or just the PS3.
I do know. To say that moving from one hardware platform to another is easy is wrong. For a simple program, fine. but for anything else, no.
I find it hard to believe that Linux or any other platform for the PS3 other than its primary one of gaming, is important enough for Sony to spend the dollars for 200-300 programmers. Even if Sony did pick a popular Linux distro, I doubt they could convince enough people to use it to make third party companies want to spend the time and people to port their programs over.
When Apple has problems with its own developers because 4 million computer sales a year aren't enough, Sony will have to demonstrate that enough people will want the PS3 for use as a computer first. Unless you think that Sony will write or commission these programs itself. They have demonstrated a distinct lack of ability to write software.
You really think that mainstream programs from mainstream companies will be rewritten for the PS3? In two months? You think Sony has compilers to do this for Windows x86 programs, or OS X PPC or x86 programs.
This will be for very inexpert users, no one else other than hobbyests would possibly want it. They (most people) are not ready for a typical Linux piece of software.
The problem here is that it's fairly easy to get Linux to run on the chip if only the main cpu is being used. But it's proven to be much harder to use the SPE's. According to a report that appeared on Anand some time ago (later withdwawn because of copyright issues), games programmers were having problems using more that two SPE's on the Cell, and more than one cpu and two threads on the 360's Xenon. As the main cpu in the Cell is not considered to be great shakes by itself, this would not be all that powerful.
Don't forget that the PS2 was being promoted for the same tasks and it never took off either.
I'm certainly not saying that it can't be done. Of course it can. You are right there. I'm saying that it won't be popular, and that the costs and likelyhood that other companies would work with it are negligable given that.
It's all about sales and usage. The technical matters are of less importance. Anything can be done if the demand is there. It's very doubtful that the demand will be there, and so the technical hurdles become significant.
what are u talking about? if you dont "assume" sony will sell well or microsoft will sell well... if you go on the numbers this time around Playstation is actualy going to grossly undersell their system.
you know how much stuff they are trying to pack in that machine? A LOT , maybe more than they shoudl considering they have already cut back what was initially planned.
Microsoft did a lot of things right with the xbox, some of the things they did wrong?
too big of a controller
not enough japenese support
where do you get off saying microsoft doesn't have great games? lets consider this
sports games are covered by both consoles.
first person shooters microsoft owns
racing games a complete tie now since Froza motorsports
rpg the 360 just nabbed final fantasy
metal gear solid was matched up with splinter cell
the only area playstation still holds ground is with those small but unique titles. thats just cuz they've been around longer, created more partnerships.
you want to make an eye to eye comparison? consider hypothetically if microsoft released the xbox at the same time the ps2 came out. head to head with the games they released together at launch microsoft would have trampled the playstation just for the sheer fact of having halo as a launch title.
the ps2 had nothing at launch omg lol. no metal gear solid for a year, no GT for almost 2 years. like i've said before the ps2 did well initially strictly cuz of the dvd drive.
when the xbox launched playstation arleady had its place well set.
EDIT: nintendo F'd up the gamecube. there is virtually NO GAMES for the machine compared to the other 2. sure they had some good ones but the lack of selection really hurt it. profit or not that life cycle is considered a great dissapointment on nintendos part.
I didn't say that the XBox didn't have great games. It does. I said that its games aren't that much better than those for the PS2. Just read around the net and you'll see the consensus.
No one knows what would have happened if they came out at the same time in the long run. MS would probably have done better. But sony outselling them four to one says more than just the lead does.
And yes, the compatability does matter. I've said that many times. It's the XBox people who have been saying that it doesn't. Look at what is happening now. Sony again has virtually 100% compatability. 360 had none. Now, under pressure, it might have some, not much though. So MS is making another mistake - and you have to agree, you gave that as one reason for the PS2's success.
Sony will probably not pile up such a lead this time, but they will lead, delay or not. And again, the Blu-Ray drive will have something to do with it. Another MS mistake, right?
And you're right about Nintendo. They don't have as many games. They also cater to a younger group than the PS2 or XBos does. But they are neck and neck with MS, and make a good profit.
Most avid gamers have both a PS2 and an XBox, so it's fairly even there. But the large majority of people have one of the three. Sony owns more than twice the market as MS and Nintendo combined. We'll see what happens this time.
To say that moving from one hardware platform to another is easy is wrong. For a simple program, fine. but for anything else, no.
...
You really think that mainstream programs from mainstream companies will be rewritten for the PS3? In two months? You think Sony has compilers to do this for Windows x86 programs, or OS X PPC or x86 programs.
...
The problem here is that it's fairly easy to get Linux to run on the chip if only the main cpu is being used. But it's proven to be much harder to use the SPE's.
It might be hard for you, but not for me. I never said anything about windows apps, just nicely wrapped Linux apps - and I already mentioned that the SPEs would not be used (or needed) for this. It would be the work of a single person.
Anyway - forget I mentioned it - but I will laugh at you when it happens.
It might be hard for you, but not for me. I never said anything about windows apps, just nicely wrapped Linux apps - and I already mentioned that the SPEs would not be used (or needed) for this. It would be the work of a single person.
Anyway - forget I mentioned it - but I will laugh at you when it happens.
Really? If you're that good you should be working for Apple or MS.
And I hope that you and the other three people who compute with this are very happy with it.
Laughter is good for you. Just make sure you're looking in the mirror when you do it.
yes yes playstation has done the whole realtime manipulation thing before. you dont remember ps2's presentation of real time manipulation ?
even so lets say Metal Gear solid looks taht good when it comes out. are you forgetting thats cinematics? those images aren't even gameplay. its a ploy they use and man do people still fall for it.
kids go crazy seeing cinematics of Madden, even with the 360. But thats not even gameplay? it makes no difference really...
the ps2 won because of the dvd player they had. the first year or so of the ps2's life had virtually no killer games. people who bought dreamcast had awesome games to play right out of the box.
i think playstation is banking on another add on to win this generation again. however unlike sega, microsoft ins't trying to bounce back, they have the money incase of an emergency.
Kojima always used in-game graphics for the cinemas. He doesn't use
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
But just saying "a browser" isn't really showing that one will be supplied. Who is working on one? Which distro of Linux will we supposedly see? Open Ofice won't work on the Cell. Neither will any other program. They have to be ported over. Look at everything Apple had to do to make that possible. No one knows whether Sony has been writing such software. Sony has been known for rather poor software development.
Even if you think that OO will be ported, how long would it take? THe new 2 version isn't even available on the Mac as yet. Neither is ver. 1.1.5! And the Mac certainly has vastly more possible users than the PS3 will have.
It's not just a compile away. Have you seen the compiler? Sony isn't even done with the tools necessary to get games finished.
People who might use this won't be using a computer monitor, as I said. They will be using a TV - just the way ALL PS2's are being used. This will be either in the living room or in a family room, for those who have one. No one is going to buy a cheap 17" monitor to play PS 3 games on. People would laugh them to death.
If you think a crappy TV is going to have high enough resolution, think again.
This is all pie in the sky.
1. The difficulties in using the compiler will all be centered around the vector units, the control unit is a regular processor. The vector units would not initially be used by the web browsing (etc) software. This is not very hard stuff, I personally have undertaken much more challanging programming problems than changing the code generation part of a compiler to produce a different opcode set (the hard part of writing a compiler is not the code generation).
2. The port of OO to the mac is done by an open source team with much fewer resources than Sony - and linux->mac is harder than linux->linux.
3. Sony put a browser on their PSP, and you think that they won't put one on their PS3?
4. People will use the PS3 in all kind of configurations - if my computer replacement predictions come true, I will probably buy 4 or 5 of them, and some will be used with 20" or 24" computer flatscreen monitors.
5. Any HDTV that supports 1080p is high enough resolution for computer use (and 1080p will be more and more common into the future, I have a CRT front projector capible of this already, and I bought it for $1400 on ebay).
i dont understand what you consider a dissapointment? xbox is levels above playstation in the online gaming scene. besides what a lot of hardcore single player gamers out there say the online capability is where the future of gaming is headed and microsoft is in the front seat at this point.
if there is one thing i've learned about this industry is that NO ONE really knows what they are doing 100 percent of the time. its apparent from obvious mistakes from every single gaming company from nintendo-microsoft.
a company like nintendo that has been around forever still makes mistakes and you're going to consider the xbox a dissapointment? incredible.
playstation has had 2 successful consoles which (ps2) was very fortunate to come out on top (mainly because of the dvd rom) cuz people quickly forget the problems they had in the beginning of that consoles life cycle.
the one thing i can say is micorsoft hsould have put an HD player in their ssytem. it was dumb not to do it and i really dont know why they didn't (yes it keeps costs down). if it was me i wouldve done the hd-dvd player standard, the harddrive an option
Sony is going to lose HUGE on the ps3. lets not even mention what if blu-ray doesn't go through then they are crushed.
there is a significant amount of time before we can even assume who wins this battle (hd-dvd or blu-ray) anyone can jump the fence at any time. the launch for the 360 can sway key players.
i cant wait to see whats going to come out of 2007
Building the PS3 up to more than what it really is smacks of blatant foolishness. It's a game console with some extra functions built in. Sony is not an OS vendor nor will you have a fully functional API for the PS3 that would cover much more than web browsing and email.
It's built for highend 3D work and a bit of movie playback. It's not a home computer in the traditional sense.
Originally posted by e1618978
1. The difficulties in using the compiler will all be centered around the vector units, the control unit is a regular processor. The vector units would not initially be used by the web browsing (etc) software. This is not very hard stuff, I personally have undertaken much more challanging programming problems than changing the code generation part of a compiler to produce a different opcode set (the hard part of writing a compiler is not the code generation).
2. The port of OO to the mac is done by an open source team with much fewer resources than Sony - and linux->mac is harder than linux->linux.
3. Sony put a browser on their PSP, and you think that they won't put one on their PS3?
4. People will use the PS3 in all kind of configurations - if my computer replacement predictions come true, I will probably buy 4 or 5 of them, and some will be used with 20" or 24" computer flatscreen monitors.
5. Any HDTV that supports 1080p is high enough resolution for computer use (and 1080p will be more and more common into the future, I have a CRT front projector capible of this already, and I bought it for $1400 on ebay).
It has nothing to do with the Linux-Mac. It has to do with the Linux PPC or x86 to Cell.
They did put a browser on the PS2, but we don't know if this will have an HD, and it sounds as though this is a dependent upon that.
The people who woulf be the logical customer wouldn't be buying 4 or 5. They would be doing this because they would be getting a game machine and a computer of sorts in one cheap unit. No 20" or 24" flat screen monitors for them.
Even $1400 is far too expensive for most people. You are technical hobbyest. Most of us on these threads are too, to a greater or lesser extent. Most people can't even change a battery.
I don't suppose that you are here on Appleinsider writing this on your PS2 keyboard? If not, then you are one of those few hobbyests I was talking about who MIGHT want one of those things. You can count the number of people who used the PS2 for this on one hand. I know dozens of people who have one (including us) and none of them have done this.
Originally posted by Elixir
wow mel where do you get your info from? sony lost billions with the ps2, billions. this is microsofts first launch and it did very well besides japan. no people do not prefer to code for the ps2, they did so cuz of the brand and the popularity.
i dont understand what you consider a dissapointment? xbox is levels above playstation in the online gaming scene. besides what a lot of hardcore single player gamers out there say the online capability is where the future of gaming is headed and microsoft is in the front seat at this point.
if there is one thing i've learned about this industry is that NO ONE really knows what they are doing 100 percent of the time. its apparent from obvious mistakes from every single gaming company from nintendo-microsoft.
a company like nintendo that has been around forever still makes mistakes and you're going to consider the xbox a dissapointment? incredible.
playstation has had 2 successful consoles which (ps2) was very fortunate to come out on top (mainly because of the dvd rom) cuz people quickly forget the problems they had in the beginning of that consoles life cycle.
the one thing i can say is micorsoft hsould have put an HD player in their ssytem. it was dumb not to do it and i really dont know why they didn't (yes it keeps costs down). if it was me i wouldve done the hd-dvd player standard, the harddrive an option
Sony is going to lose HUGE on the ps3. lets not even mention what if blu-ray doesn't go through then they are crushed.
there is a significant amount of time before we can even assume who wins this battle (hd-dvd or blu-ray) anyone can jump the fence at any time. the launch for the 360 can sway key players.
i cant wait to see whats going to come out of 2007
Where do you get yours from?
Sony has made billions on the PS2. Two thirds of their profit has come from it. They have been relying on the PS2 for several years for profits.
Just read any financial journal, or go to Forbes on the web. This is well known.
I don't know anyone who has thought that the games for the X Box were superior in any significant way. Programmers have said that programming on the PS2 was not hard once they got used to it.
Sony's online games have also done much better in numbers of players than anything MS have been doing.
And yes, I say the X Box is a disappointment because MS was expecting to make money with it, and they have lost billions instead.
Can you name even one other company that would still be producing it after having lost over $1 billion in the first year alone? I can't think of any.
The PS3 (or XBox360 for that matter) is not a competitor for the desktop or laptop PC (including Mac) -- but it is a competitor for the Media Center PC. Microsoft wants that market, and a lot of hardware companies want it to. The PC market pales in comparison to the market of everyone who has a TV but doesn't have the ultimate media center device (i.e. everyone with a TV).
The PC desktop market isn't really growing anymore, it is operating primarily on replacement purchases... and in case you hadn't noticed the motivation to upgrade in the last couple of years has dropped off markedly because the chip companies have hit a clockrate wall and the easy performance wins are coming much slower and much less dramatically. Laptops are selling like crazy because they have become much more compelling with wireless everywhere and decent performing low power CPU & GPUs. I don't see the PC market going away, but its importance is going to be a lot less than it has been in the past.
And as for the fixed hardware configuration of the PS3, this is typically an advantage for the market(s) it is aimed at. There is an interesting feature of the Cell architecture that most people seem to have missed, however: for the first time a game console has a chip architecture that lends itself extremely well to scalability. In 3 years Sony could release an updated PS3 that simply has more vector processors, but remains fully compatible with the existing one. In fact, if done right, software created for the first version will automatically run better on later versions (i.e. 60 fps instead of 30 fps... and if you think all PS3 games will be 60 fps, dream on).
how about telling that to the millions who bought halo, splinter cell, max payne, games that couldn't even run on a playstation 2 without incredible load times.
yes you put it perfectly programmers dont mind coding for ps2 after getting used to it.... 4 years? damn thats a long time, i to believe ps2 would be easy to program for after that amount of time haha.
you're words exactly covered what i was saying before about how the PS3 is just showing "hopeful" images of what it wants to do cuz why? programmers have a hard time coding for a hard system at first and get better with time.
Originally posted by Programmer
I don't think even Microsoft is a in a net loss position on XBox at this point.
I would agree with everything except for that. MS lost $1 billion their last financial year in their games division, attributed almost entirely to the X Box and software.
Actually, to be truthful, last year Sony's games division didn't do that well either, but nothing like that.
Originally posted by Elixir
mel teh fact that you'll sit here and tell me that you donjt know anyone who thought xbox games were superior to playstation games is just stating that you obviously just dislike the machine.
how about telling that to the millions who bought halo, splinter cell, max payne, games that couldn't even run on a playstation 2 without incredible load times.
yes you put it perfectly programmers dont mind coding for ps2 after getting used to it.... 4 years? damn thats a long time, i to believe ps2 would be easy to program for after that amount of time haha.
you're words exactly covered what i was saying before about how the PS3 is just showing "hopeful" images of what it wants to do cuz why? programmers have a hard time coding for a hard system at first and get better with time.
I admit that I don't play games that much now, but I do have both.
One of the problems that MS has faced is that crossover games (ones that are on both platforms) are almost EXACTLY alike. That's by design. The X Box only games might, at times, be slightly better in some aspects, but not by much. The playability of both systems is about the same.
And programmers have been saying that for several years, not just now. It sounds like you dislike the PS2.
Just like MS was showing "hopeful" much critisized images last year. So, what's new? After all the PS2 outsold the X Box by four to one.
Sony was simply able to get more and better games.
you're in an apple forum making statements like that... think about it.
also, again
it was microsofts first console!!!!!!
japenese developers didn't come out in numbers to support the xbox unlike the 360.
the playstation already had a name set for itself. geesh man they even went up against nintendo thats a pretty tough competition and considering that i think the xbox did well.
you're hard to please.
Originally posted by Elixir
mel- you can make statements like "sony sold more" all day long.
you're in an apple forum making statements like that... think about it.
also, again
it was microsofts first console!!!!!!
japenese developers didn't come out in numbers to support the xbox unlike the 360.
the playstation already had a name set for itself. geesh man they even went up against nintendo thats a pretty tough competition and considering that i think the xbox did well.
you're hard to please.
I realize where we are. But the PS 2 and three, as well as the XBox and the Gamecube and Revolution are all games. Games are better if more people buy them. Why? Because they are buying them because they like them. Not because they have to use them at work. Not because the original PC sold because it had IBM's initials on it.
Sony came from nowhere in the game business. It wasn't first by a long shot, not by 15 years or so. It sold because its games were much better than anything else at the time. The PS1 first sold for $650. It started to do really well after it came down to $500.
The XBox was highly anticipated. Everyone (including me) expected it to just blow the PS2 away. It didn't. It was a little better. It also had Halo. Without that it would have faded away, but that sold enough boxes for developers to become encouraged.
Despite MS saying that there would be 45 games available upon the 360's intro, it's expected that there will be, at most, 26.
But you just can't ignore the fact that it has lost so much money consistently. What would have happened if MS decided to price it and the games they make they way Sony did? That is, to have the games division make money?
Nobody would be buying it.
I'm not denying the numbers sold. I'm sure that BMW could sell a lot more cars if they priced them to match a Chevy or something at that level. But would they? Of course not.
MS knows that the box isn't so much better that they could convince gamers to buy it if it were priced 50% more. MS is subsidizing the people buying this, as well as the games they make. This is the point I'm making. You don't want to look at that.
Nintendo hasn't done that. They make a profit. I wonder what their sales would be if MS didn't sell their machines and games well below cost.
I'm sure that Sony could sell even more of these things if they sold them for $50. The games too.
The same thing seems to be happening again with the PS3, the 360, and the Revolution. Nintendo will price to make a good profit. Sony will price to make a smaller profit, and MS will price so that they lose large amounts of money. Though they have said that they "hope" to break even after the first year. They said that about the first one as well.
It's like Netscape vs Explorer. Explorer didn't do well until they gave it away.
Does that mean that Explorer really did well? It's that nobody can afford to compete with MS when they decide to really go for it. Who knows, maybe Sony and Nintendo will just give up if they start doing less well and then MS will be left. Then they can say that they did it fair and square. It only cost $15 billion in losses.
You're hard to please too.
you know how much stuff they are trying to pack in that machine? A LOT , maybe more than they shoudl considering they have already cut back what was initially planned.
Microsoft did a lot of things right with the xbox, some of the things they did wrong?
too big of a controller
not enough japenese support
where do you get off saying microsoft doesn't have great games? lets consider this
sports games are covered by both consoles.
first person shooters microsoft owns
racing games a complete tie now since Froza motorsports
rpg the 360 just nabbed final fantasy
metal gear solid was matched up with splinter cell
the only area playstation still holds ground is with those small but unique titles. thats just cuz they've been around longer, created more partnerships.
you want to make an eye to eye comparison? consider hypothetically if microsoft released the xbox at the same time the ps2 came out. head to head with the games they released together at launch microsoft would have trampled the playstation just for the sheer fact of having halo as a launch title.
the ps2 had nothing at launch omg lol. no metal gear solid for a year, no GT for almost 2 years. like i've said before the ps2 did well initially strictly cuz of the dvd drive.
when the xbox launched playstation arleady had its place well set.
EDIT: nintendo F'd up the gamecube. there is virtually NO GAMES for the machine compared to the other 2. sure they had some good ones but the lack of selection really hurt it. profit or not that life cycle is considered a great dissapointment on nintendos part.
http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/127
Originally posted by melgross
It has nothing to do with the Linux-Mac. It has to do with the Linux PPC or x86 to Cell.
I can't pretend to be an expert on the Cell, but I am not a "technical hobbiest", but a professional programmer with many years experience (including 4 years of compiler design).
I just don't see what you are going on about. An argument about the marketing of it, sure, or if anyone would use it like I said, sure - but you don't sound like you know what would be an easy or hard programming problem.
Given a compiler (which they will have) and a linux port (which they will also have), I could get the bundle working in a couple months (or a year if you count ergonomically perfect, and graphically pretty). Sony probably has 200-300 programmers like me working on the PS3.
Exlir - the 360 has 17 launch titles, the PS3 has over 100. If anything, the PS3 (from the looks of things so far) will dominate even more this generation than last. My favorite developer (snowblind) is going with the 360, but most are going with both or just the PS3.
Originally posted by e1618978
I can't pretend to be an expert on the Cell, but I am not a "technical hobbiest", but a professional programmer with many years experience (including 4 years of compiler design).
I just don't see what you are going on about. An argument about the marketing of it, sure, or if anyone would use it like I said, sure - but you don't sound like you know what would be an easy or hard programming problem.
Given a compiler (which they will have) and a linux port (which they will also have), I could get the bundle working in a couple months (or a year if you count ergonomically perfect, and graphically pretty). Sony probably has 200-300 programmers like me working on the PS3.
Exlir - the 360 has 17 launch titles, the PS3 has over 100. If anything, the PS3 (from the looks of things so far) will dominate even more this generation than last. My favorite developer (snowblind) is going with the 360, but most are going with both or just the PS3.
I do know. To say that moving from one hardware platform to another is easy is wrong. For a simple program, fine. but for anything else, no.
I find it hard to believe that Linux or any other platform for the PS3 other than its primary one of gaming, is important enough for Sony to spend the dollars for 200-300 programmers. Even if Sony did pick a popular Linux distro, I doubt they could convince enough people to use it to make third party companies want to spend the time and people to port their programs over.
When Apple has problems with its own developers because 4 million computer sales a year aren't enough, Sony will have to demonstrate that enough people will want the PS3 for use as a computer first. Unless you think that Sony will write or commission these programs itself. They have demonstrated a distinct lack of ability to write software.
You really think that mainstream programs from mainstream companies will be rewritten for the PS3? In two months? You think Sony has compilers to do this for Windows x86 programs, or OS X PPC or x86 programs.
This will be for very inexpert users, no one else other than hobbyests would possibly want it. They (most people) are not ready for a typical Linux piece of software.
The problem here is that it's fairly easy to get Linux to run on the chip if only the main cpu is being used. But it's proven to be much harder to use the SPE's. According to a report that appeared on Anand some time ago (later withdwawn because of copyright issues), games programmers were having problems using more that two SPE's on the Cell, and more than one cpu and two threads on the 360's Xenon. As the main cpu in the Cell is not considered to be great shakes by itself, this would not be all that powerful.
Don't forget that the PS2 was being promoted for the same tasks and it never took off either.
I'm certainly not saying that it can't be done. Of course it can. You are right there. I'm saying that it won't be popular, and that the costs and likelyhood that other companies would work with it are negligable given that.
It's all about sales and usage. The technical matters are of less importance. Anything can be done if the demand is there. It's very doubtful that the demand will be there, and so the technical hurdles become significant.
Originally posted by Elixir
what are u talking about? if you dont "assume" sony will sell well or microsoft will sell well... if you go on the numbers this time around Playstation is actualy going to grossly undersell their system.
you know how much stuff they are trying to pack in that machine? A LOT , maybe more than they shoudl considering they have already cut back what was initially planned.
Microsoft did a lot of things right with the xbox, some of the things they did wrong?
too big of a controller
not enough japenese support
where do you get off saying microsoft doesn't have great games? lets consider this
sports games are covered by both consoles.
first person shooters microsoft owns
racing games a complete tie now since Froza motorsports
rpg the 360 just nabbed final fantasy
metal gear solid was matched up with splinter cell
the only area playstation still holds ground is with those small but unique titles. thats just cuz they've been around longer, created more partnerships.
you want to make an eye to eye comparison? consider hypothetically if microsoft released the xbox at the same time the ps2 came out. head to head with the games they released together at launch microsoft would have trampled the playstation just for the sheer fact of having halo as a launch title.
the ps2 had nothing at launch omg lol. no metal gear solid for a year, no GT for almost 2 years. like i've said before the ps2 did well initially strictly cuz of the dvd drive.
when the xbox launched playstation arleady had its place well set.
EDIT: nintendo F'd up the gamecube. there is virtually NO GAMES for the machine compared to the other 2. sure they had some good ones but the lack of selection really hurt it. profit or not that life cycle is considered a great dissapointment on nintendos part.
http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/127
I didn't say that the XBox didn't have great games. It does. I said that its games aren't that much better than those for the PS2. Just read around the net and you'll see the consensus.
No one knows what would have happened if they came out at the same time in the long run. MS would probably have done better. But sony outselling them four to one says more than just the lead does.
And yes, the compatability does matter. I've said that many times. It's the XBox people who have been saying that it doesn't. Look at what is happening now. Sony again has virtually 100% compatability. 360 had none. Now, under pressure, it might have some, not much though. So MS is making another mistake - and you have to agree, you gave that as one reason for the PS2's success.
Sony will probably not pile up such a lead this time, but they will lead, delay or not. And again, the Blu-Ray drive will have something to do with it. Another MS mistake, right?
And you're right about Nintendo. They don't have as many games. They also cater to a younger group than the PS2 or XBos does. But they are neck and neck with MS, and make a good profit.
Most avid gamers have both a PS2 and an XBox, so it's fairly even there. But the large majority of people have one of the three. Sony owns more than twice the market as MS and Nintendo combined. We'll see what happens this time.
Back on topic, WB has announced releasing movies in both formats (which was always a distinct possibility)...
link
Originally posted by melgross
To say that moving from one hardware platform to another is easy is wrong. For a simple program, fine. but for anything else, no.
...
You really think that mainstream programs from mainstream companies will be rewritten for the PS3? In two months? You think Sony has compilers to do this for Windows x86 programs, or OS X PPC or x86 programs.
...
The problem here is that it's fairly easy to get Linux to run on the chip if only the main cpu is being used. But it's proven to be much harder to use the SPE's.
It might be hard for you, but not for me. I never said anything about windows apps, just nicely wrapped Linux apps - and I already mentioned that the SPEs would not be used (or needed) for this. It would be the work of a single person.
Anyway - forget I mentioned it - but I will laugh at you when it happens.
Originally posted by hmurchison
If Warner does capitulate then the battle is indeed over as Warner stands to gain significant royalties from HD-DVD just as they did with DVD.
Does this mean I win the bet?
Originally posted by e1618978
It might be hard for you, but not for me. I never said anything about windows apps, just nicely wrapped Linux apps - and I already mentioned that the SPEs would not be used (or needed) for this. It would be the work of a single person.
Anyway - forget I mentioned it - but I will laugh at you when it happens.
Really? If you're that good you should be working for Apple or MS.
And I hope that you and the other three people who compute with this are very happy with it.
Laughter is good for you. Just make sure you're looking in the mirror when you do it.
Originally posted by Elixir
yes yes playstation has done the whole realtime manipulation thing before. you dont remember ps2's presentation of real time manipulation ?
even so lets say Metal Gear solid looks taht good when it comes out. are you forgetting thats cinematics? those images aren't even gameplay. its a ploy they use and man do people still fall for it.
kids go crazy seeing cinematics of Madden, even with the 360. But thats not even gameplay? it makes no difference really...
the ps2 won because of the dvd player they had. the first year or so of the ps2's life had virtually no killer games. people who bought dreamcast had awesome games to play right out of the box.
i think playstation is banking on another add on to win this generation again. however unlike sega, microsoft ins't trying to bounce back, they have the money incase of an emergency.
Kojima always used in-game graphics for the cinemas. He doesn't use
pre-rendered cinemas in the Metal Gear games.