Jump to content


Photo

PS4 and next Xbox at this year's E3


  • Please log in to reply
2033 replies to this topic

#1621 Dudley

Dudley
  • Supporters
  • 18083 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:17 PM

Just lock games to the PSN account, and put a time-limit on the number of machine migrations you can do. Can't have the same account on multiple machines, when you move it to another machine then you have to wait a month before you can move it to another machine. That's not intrusive to 95% of users, and should limit piracy nicely.


It's intrusive to someone like me who uses more than one 360 all the time.

It's also death the second EA/Sony/Whomever decide they've made enough money and switch that off.

Not really, if a game is Steamworks or includes other online activation DRM at retail, there's no version which doesn't allow you to play without online registration. You opt in based on what's available.

I mean, what new PC games are retail and don't include online activation DRM at this point? Valve, Blizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Activision out, small indie stuff out, all the F2P online stuff out, MMOs out - I can't think of anything.

Similarly, not everyone is going to sell their old consoles the second they get a new one (especially if they're not backwards compatible), and it's not like the old consoles will see their new releases dry up the instant a new one launches - look at this gen, the majority of the software lineup for the first year was up-ports. I think you're projecting your actions (buy new instantly, sell old instantly) onto the majority of the population, which prior experience makes not seem likely, but then giving them different attitudes, and then using that as a description of why it will fail.


You're not quite getting me. My point was on PC they made that translation gradually on the same hardware. On PS4 as soon as they buy a PS4 they're all in.

Really though I think the key is that I have 0 confidence in Sony to provide the service and sales that Steam do.
  • 0

#1622 Red Alignment

Red Alignment
  • Members
  • 2996 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:23 PM

Cell is dead, man.

Has the Cell processor ever been used inside any products apart from the PS3?
  • 0

#1623 SPE

SPE
  • Members
  • 4329 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:28 PM

Yeah. Remember it's a co-designed chip with IBM and Toshiba, who have both put it in their products.

Sony recently sold off their stake in the Cell consortium and offloaded their Cell fabrication plant.

Cell is dead, man.
  • 0

#1624 RubberJohnny

RubberJohnny
  • Supporters
  • 18160 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:33 PM

Let's be honest, Cell was designed the way it was to prevent code written for the PS3 (which Sony expected to dominate) to not work very well on anything else, thus locking quality versions of games to their platforms and further enshrining their success, as Gabe Newell noted.

In the end it was 1) ridiculously expensive, 2) barely more powerful than off the shelf components. The weird Cell championing is some "PS3 will win because X", fanboy bullshit from 2007 that's incredibly dated and obsolete nowadays.
  • 2

#1625 SPE

SPE
  • Members
  • 4329 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:38 PM

Not really. Cell was well ahead of the curve at the time, and the PS3 was only hamstrung by the below par RSX. The times the PS3 outshines the 360 are due to graphical grunt work being offloaded to the Cell. It was always designed to be able to take on GPU tasks.

The only reason the 360 punched above its weight is that Xenon CPU was based on the same IBM designed PPEs that went into the Cell. It effectively used the billion dollar R&D from Sony to design the Microsoft CPU. The two CPU designs were being worked on in tandem, in the same building, with the Cell team kept unaware of the Xenon team's work. There's a good book by the lead designers at IBM that covers this. Suffice it to say, Sony were not happy when they found out, but legally, IBM had done nothing wrong.
  • 1

#1626 Stingo

Stingo
  • Members
  • 879 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:11 PM

If "Cell is dead", then why did they recently complete the transfer of the factory producing the Cell & RSX ? If they were looking to rid themselves of the architecture and cut their losses? They now own that plant instead of planning to sell it...

http://www.sony.net/...224E/index.html
  • 0

#1627 mushashi

mushashi
  • Members
  • 9319 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

I think it's expected in this age of iOS and Android that your digital purchases will not only work on newer models, but also possibly benefit from a performance increase. Vita does it, so I can't see why PS4 wouldn't.


It might be expected due to peoples' expectations being warped by the homogenous nature of devices like the PC and ARM based mobile devices, but perpetual BC/FC fundamentally undermines the original point of consoles.

The console was designed as device which was bespoke and people could cane the hell out of it to extract every last drop of performance, what perpetual BC/FC entails is the PC model, where you can't code stuff to the metal anymore and everything has to be abstracted so the game can run on some future tech which has underlying hardware similarities.

You eventually end up with Windows and bloated legacy code support, which has its benefits, but also serious downsides in terms of making cheap hardware perform above and beyond what it should reasonably be able to do.
  • 1

#1628 PC Master Race

PC Master Race
  • Supporters
  • 23731 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:41 PM

Not really. Cell was well ahead of the curve at the time, and the PS3 was only hamstrung by the below par RSX. The times the PS3 outshines the 360 are due to graphical grunt work being offloaded to the Cell. It was always designed to be able to take on GPU tasks

That was the plan, unfortunately is was pretty crappy at quite a lot of important GPU tasks, hence the rush job with Nvidia.

The only reason the 360 punched above its weight is that Xenon CPU was based on the same IBM designed PPEs that went into the Cell.

The reason was due to the GPU being much, much better than the afore mentioned Nvidia rush job. Poor CPU, great GPU. Exact opposite of what Sony cooked up. I'm not saying that IBM didnt do a bit of a backhander, but to claim that the 360 punches above it's weight due to this is nonsense. You could turn it around and say that the PS3 punches above it's weight has it has the Cell to make up for the shortcoming of it's poor GPU.

http://forum.beyond3...2&postcount=104
  • 1

#1629 mushashi

mushashi
  • Members
  • 9319 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:44 PM

Let's be honest, Cell was designed the way it was to prevent code written for the PS3 (which Sony expected to dominate) to not work very well on anything else, thus locking quality versions of games to their platforms and further enshrining their success, as Gabe Newell noted.

In the end it was 1) ridiculously expensive, 2) barely more powerful than off the shelf components. The weird Cell championing is some "PS3 will win because X", fanboy bullshit from 2007 that's incredibly dated and obsolete nowadays.


And yet many programmers have noted that developing and optimising first for CELL actually helps make other ports of the game work better, Sony dun goofed there using your conspiracy theory ;)
  • 0

#1630 Sprite Machine

Sprite Machine
  • Members
  • 24982 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:45 PM

It might be expected due to peoples' expectations being warped by the homogenous nature of devices like the PC and ARM based mobile devices, but perpetual BC/FC fundamentally undermines the original point of consoles.

The console was designed as device which was bespoke and people could cane the hell out of it to extract every last drop of performance, what perpetual BC/FC entails is the PC model, where you can't code stuff to the metal anymore and everything has to be abstracted so the game can run on some future tech which has underlying hardware similarities.

You eventually end up with Windows and bloated legacy code support, which has its benefits, but also serious downsides in terms of making cheap hardware perform above and beyond what it should reasonably be able to do.

You know what? I genuinely don't care. I think we're well beyond the point where extracting minute performance increases from the silicon is necessary in creating games to any standard we could possibly want.

Bring on the bloated OS / miniaturised legacy chips, whatever it takes.
  • 1

#1631 mushashi

mushashi
  • Members
  • 9319 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:54 PM

You know what? I genuinely don't care. I think we're well beyond the point where extracting minute performance increases from the silicon is necessary in creating games to any standard we could possibly want.

Bring on the bloated OS / miniaturised legacy chips, whatever it takes.


Well go buy a PC or stick to mobile devices, games for those don't really expose the potential performance of the underlying hardware, and curiously enough, the hardware is inversely priced relatively compared to a console :P
  • 0

#1632 RubberJohnny

RubberJohnny
  • Supporters
  • 18160 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 04:14 PM

And yet many programmers have noted that developing and optimising first for CELL actually helps make other ports of the game work better, Sony dun goofed there using your conspiracy theory ;)


Gabe Newells' theory.
  • 0

#1633 Napole0n

Napole0n
  • Supporters
  • 67107 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 04:55 PM

I should just sell all my game stuff bar the PSVita and pick up a new hobby instead. Cross stitching maybe.
  • 0

#1634 Stanley

Stanley
  • Members
  • 15845 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:14 PM

It might be expected due to peoples' expectations being warped by the homogenous nature of devices like the PC and ARM based mobile devices, but perpetual BC/FC fundamentally undermines the original point of consoles.

The console was designed as device which was bespoke and people could cane the hell out of it to extract every last drop of performance, what perpetual BC/FC entails is the PC model, where you can't code stuff to the metal anymore and everything has to be abstracted so the game can run on some future tech which has underlying hardware similarities.

You eventually end up with Windows and bloated legacy code support, which has its benefits, but also serious downsides in terms of making cheap hardware perform above and beyond what it should reasonably be able to do.

What a console was and what it's become has changed. It's now about content, convenience and ease of use.

Why bust a gut developing new faster bespoke hardware for diminishing returns, and when a cheaper solution is available allowing you to deliver the content you want anyway?

Digital delivery has allowed for a nice revenue stream to bubble away under for older titles, and less hardware intensive smaller budget games.

Like it or not iOS and the app store has had an irreversible impact on consumers expectations and habits.

Cutting off backwards compatibility at this stage is suicide.

The most successful consoles have always supported it too - Gameboy-GBA-DS, PSone to PStwo, GC-Wii.
  • 0

#1635 MW_Jimmy

MW_Jimmy
  • Supporters
  • 6813 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:14 PM

Don't cry Napoleon! Maybe you should try playing some of the amazing games that have been released in the last few years instead of moaning about shiny polygons. :)
  • 1

#1636 SeanR

SeanR
  • Supporters
  • 107589 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:26 PM

I should just sell all my game stuff bar the PSVita and pick up a new hobby instead. Cross stitching maybe.


Future also publish a cross-stitching magazine...
  • 0

#1637 Napole0n

Napole0n
  • Supporters
  • 67107 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:41 PM

Don't cry Napoleon! Maybe you should try playing some of the amazing games that have been released in the last few years instead of moaning about shiny polygons. :)

I've played most of them, although I could probably squeeze about 2-3 years out of my collection if I went to finish them all.
  • 0

#1638 Smoothy

Smoothy
  • Members
  • 26197 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:55 PM

Cutting off backwards compatibility at this stage is suicide.

The most successful consoles have always supported it too - Gameboy-GBA-DS, PSone to PStwo, GC-Wii.

Nope. 360 is successful (relatively speaking) and it dropped backwards support, as did PS3. There's no real need for it - they can sell your games back to you again online (if you were a owner of a former model - if not then it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference especially when you can simply buy the older console still anyway).
  • 1

#1639 Smitty

Smitty
  • Members
  • 71578 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:01 PM

I think the hoo-ha over BC is so bloody annoying.

Just keep your old console and shut up.
  • 9

#1640 Meh

Meh
  • Members
  • 31525 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:21 PM

What Smittington said.
  • 0

#1641 SMD

SMD
  • Members
  • 21247 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:24 PM

I think the hoo-ha over BC is so bloody annoying.

Just keep your old console and shut up.


My Mega Drive still works. I wish I could be just as confident of my PS3 and 360 surviving that long.
  • 1

#1642 Stanley

Stanley
  • Members
  • 15845 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:46 PM

Nope. 360 is successful (relatively speaking) and it dropped backwards support, as did PS3. There's no real need for it - they can sell your games back to you again online (if you were a owner of a former model - if not then it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference especially when you can simply buy the older console still anyway).

If by successful you mean distant second, again, then I guess so, I don't think Microsoft would be happy with it hence Kinect and playing catch up with Nintendo.

But thats besides the point - if Microsift don't support the migration of digital purchases over to their next gen format they're gonna piss a lot of people off.

Even Nintendo do this. Evolve or die.


I think the hoo-ha over BC is so bloody annoying.

Just keep your old console and shut up.

Some of us don't want countless boxes under pur tellies thank you.
  • 0

#1643 SMD

SMD
  • Members
  • 21247 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:46 PM

Let's not evangelise Nintendo yet, so far they're making people pay twice for the same emulated games on Wii and 3DS.
  • 0

#1644 Stanley

Stanley
  • Members
  • 15845 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:54 PM

Let's not evangelise Nintendo yet, so far they're making people pay twice for the same emulated games on Wii and 3DS.

That's my point, if a company known for its reticence tiwards online functions is doing it, then you basically follow suit.

In the next generation people will be interacting with their TVs using smartphones and tablets. TVs themselves will be capable of running apps. If you want to compete with that then you need to offer your customers the content they want, the way they want it.

Expecting them to effectively write off all their purchases over the last 5, 6, 7 years isn't going to wash.
  • 0

#1645 Meh

Meh
  • Members
  • 31525 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:58 PM

If by successful you mean distant second, again, then I guess so, I don't think Microsoft would be happy with it hence Kinect and playing catch up with Nintendo.

But thats besides the point - if Microsift don't support the migration of digital purchases over to their next gen format they're gonna piss a lot of people off.

Even Nintendo do this. Evolve or die.


Some of us don't want countless boxes under pur tellies thank you.


Try putting them in a cupboard instead.
  • 0

#1646 Masu

Masu
  • Members
  • 3933 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:42 PM

BC didn't matter a jot to me before this Gen - maybe because of the visual jump, not the biggest leap but certain titles aside it's at the point where games mostly don't look atmosphere destroyingly shit - but with XBLA around I need it.
And with Steam making it the norm to give players their games for their life, rather than merely for the life of the machine, it'll be surprising if MS fail to offer BC.
  • 0

#1647 SPE

SPE
  • Members
  • 4329 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:34 PM

but to claim that the 360 punches above it's weight due to this is nonsense.


Calm down dear. All I meant by that is if you look at the touted processing power of the 360 compared to the PS3, the PS3 should have easily eclipsed the Xbox in grunt. As pretty much every multi-format game ever has shown, that's not the case. The CPU is the 360 is much better than originally thought and well integrated with the GPU. A GPU that was designed from the ground up to work in a console.

The original design for the PS3 was it would have the Cell as the CPU and a Sony designed GPU. The Cell would take on a lot of the typical GPU work. The progress on the Sony GPU wasn't on track, so to ensure the PS3 could be launched in the desired window, Sony had to go hunting for a GPU late on in the PS3s life. Hence the RSX, and hence it not being optimised for a console.

You could turn it around and say that the PS3 punches above it's weight has it has the Cell to make up for the shortcoming of it's poor GPU.


That's is what I said. Without the Cell making up the the short comings of the RSX, the PS3 would have been well below the output of the 360.

I should have learnt by now to expect reactions like yours if I dare to post anything that could be deemed anti-360 in this forum, even if that is not what you have written at all.
  • 0

#1648 Smoothy

Smoothy
  • Members
  • 26197 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:45 PM

If by successful you mean distant second, again, then I guess so, I don't think Microsoft would be happy with it hence Kinect and playing catch up with Nintendo.

But thats besides the point - if Microsift don't support the migration of digital purchases over to their next gen format they're gonna piss a lot of people off.

Even Nintendo do this. Evolve or die.


Some of us don't want countless boxes under pur tellies thank you.

If somehow you're putting BC over much more important features especially when you STILL own the old console, then you're doing it wrong.
  • 1

#1649 PC Master Race

PC Master Race
  • Supporters
  • 23731 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:58 PM

Calm down dear. All I meant by that is if you look at the touted processing power of the 360 compared to the PS3, the PS3 should have easily eclipsed the Xbox in grunt. As pretty much every multi-format game ever has shown, that's not the case. The CPU is the 360 is much better than originally thought and well integrated with the GPU. A GPU that was designed from the ground up to work in a console.

The original design for the PS3 was it would have the Cell as the CPU and a Sony designed GPU. The Cell would take on a lot of the typical GPU work. The progress on the Sony GPU wasn't on track, so to ensure the PS3 could be launched in the desired window, Sony had to go hunting for a GPU late on in the PS3s life. Hence the RSX, and hence it not being optimised for a console.


No the plan was always to use the Cell (or at least the SPE units packaged up into a separate piece of silicon) for all the graphical work, but like I said that was not working out as the other parts required to operate as a GPU were not up to task. So they went shopping for a off the shelf GPU with little time remaining. The link I posted goes in to much better detail as to why the claimed numbers for the RSX just don't mean anything in real terms.

So that is twice now Nvidia have done a dodgy deaal in regards to getting their hardware into a console, probably explains why AMD seem to have the next gen gig all sewn up.

Anyway, you said the 360 punched above its weight due to it having tech from the PPE inside it, when really the CPU is the weak link when you compare the two machines. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. Given the extra development time, the PS3 really should have ground the 360 into dust tech wise. To be fair, recent platform exclusives do look a step beyond what the 360 can push out, but I'm sure people expected that to happen much earlier than it did.

I should have learnt by now to expect reactions like yours if I dare to post anything that could be deemed anti-360 in this forum, even if that is not what you have written at all.

Attached File  oh-you.jpg   23.21KB   0 downloads
  • 0

#1650 Stanley

Stanley
  • Members
  • 15845 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:35 PM

If somehow you're putting BC over much more important features especially when you STILL own the old console, then you're doing it wrong.

Even the term 'backwards compatibility' is so dated now. There's the catalogue and that's it. Xbox Live is an account, same with PSN, Steam, iTunes and so on. They should not be constrained by moving between devices, or have whole chunks of the catalogue unavailable - thats just not good business sense, and not something customers will tolerate.

Look at PS Vita - even just a cursory glance over at the thread here and you can see it's given the PSP catalogue a much needed boost.

Content is everything. The hardware war is over - was over years ago.
  • 0


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users