May 14, 2006 at 9:48 am #1777
It looks like not only will the PlayStation 3 support Linux (or actually run on Linux), but it will also support homebrew developers.May 14, 2006 at 3:45 pm #21182BSherrodParticipant
Somehow I don’t think it’ll be as easy as people think because game developers are having trouble developing with the cell processor and they have 50-man teams doing it. But this is exciting nonetheless.May 14, 2006 at 11:36 pm #21187
I don’t see why Sony would support homebrew developers for PS3 when every update they make for the PSP firmware they’re trying endlessly to shut them out.May 15, 2006 at 2:45 am #21181
Considering the way Sony has been about homebrew, I’m not sure why they would do it either. But it’s still cool that it can be done.
And it’s true that at first developing for the cell processor will be hard, because it’s so new. But then some people will figure out, and they’ll say how they did it. Then other people will find an even easier way, which they’ll report to the community about. And then more people will find an even easier way.
Eventually, there will be game programming libraries (I bet SDL will be the first to be ported) and clear-cut directions on how to use them and how to program the cell processor in an easier way, which will make community development faster and easier.
This isn’t really all that different from the GP2X, which is a Linux-based handheld gaming device, largely supported by community software.May 15, 2006 at 4:48 am #21175Version3Keymaster
Sony is probably making this move to increase the popularity of the cell processor, and to allow the community to help them work out it’s growth/issues and such. Okay, so you are a future programmer of the world, who are you most valuable to? It’s not hard to see at least one of the reasons Sony has changed their position with the PS3.May 15, 2006 at 6:53 am #21180
Good point. Also, it broadens the developer base for the PS3. For instance, if a new developer signs up to do a 360 game, they have to learn the 360 way of doing things. If they sign up to do a Wii game, they have to learn the Wii way of doing things.
But, let’s say a development company, or Sony itself, signs on a new developer from the homebrew community. That person already knows the PS3 way of doing things and is much more comfortable developing for it, so they can get to work right away.May 15, 2006 at 10:15 pm #21186
I just want to hear a manufacturer employee’s conversation.
Random Person: “So, what do you do for a living?”
Employee: “I make Wii’s”.
RP: “Well bless you, you poor imbecelic soul. Did you throw your pants in the wash?”May 15, 2006 at 10:21 pm #21185
So the latest I keep hearing is that there’s no detectable difference in the graphics of the 360 and PS3. It would seem that the only reason to have a PS3 is that at the time of release, it will be the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market. Then again, with all the problems I’ve heard they’re having with the Blu-Ray, the only movie studio who will be onboard making the Blu-Ray movies will be Sony Pictures while everyone else goes the route of HDDVD.
Not that they’re anywhere near similar media formats, but look at what ended up happening with UMDs in the end (I’m not talking about UMD games though).
Although I’m a ‘wait and see’ kind of guy who has no company bias or loyalties, Sony has seemed rather flakey throughout this whole deal.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention. The other factor that plays is whether or not Sony will have enough great exclusives. I’m guessing they won’t have exclusives that will sway me into buying one, seeing as how I’ve already got a 360 and I’m thrilled with it. I’ve even read that the next-gen Grand Theft Auto will most likely not be a playstation exclusive and will be released tandemly for both systems (GTA3 is what got me to buy a PS2 back in 2001. I’m big on that series). Then again, like I said I’m a wait and seer.May 16, 2006 at 1:01 am #21179
Even if the graphical capabilities are the same, which I’m not sure about, the PS3’s cell processor is still more powerful. Also, the PS3 has more true backwards-compatibility than the clunky system the 360 has in place.May 16, 2006 at 1:29 am #21174Version3Keymaster
PS3 will have strong sales because of it’s backward compatibility, the cutting edge factor, raw processor abilities and brand loyalty (even if that’s not exclusive)… but failing to maintain it’s history of exclusive titles will keep it securing it’s future based on any one of a combination of them. Hardcore gamers will own both, a step under (as a whole) will continue to pick a camp… but if PS3 can’t leverage the platform, or the computing power of the system early on, it could just blow up in their faces and be deemed ‘too damned expensive’ by more people than it should be.May 16, 2006 at 1:41 am #21184
The problem still, is that the PS3 will be coming out a full year after the Xbox 360 released and for 200 dollars more than the 360’s current price. By the time they release it the 360 will have sold about 10 million of the suckers, let alone have a nice stranglehold on the market. The 360 is set for a price drop soon. Meanwhile since the PS3 got feature-greedy, the fact that they’ve got both a hard drive and a blu-ray drive, seems like a price drop would be far from likely.
As far as the backwards compatability, as long as they continue to work on it and not abandon adding more titles to the list, then I have no complaints so far. As long as they add The Warriors to the list, I’ll be happy. I loved that game.May 16, 2006 at 4:27 am #21178
You may be happy with the 360’s level of backwards-compatibility, and other people will be too, but I’ve read quite a few letters on various websites and in various magazines where people have complained about it. The PS3’s backwards-compatibility is supposed to be more of an “it just works” thing.
One of the areas that the PS3 will have a much greater advantage in, due to its more powerful processor, is in physics modeling. That can really add a lot more realism and a lot more of the “wow” factor to a game.
Also, as I understand it, the PS3’s cell processor is dynamically reprogrammable, much like an FPU (Field Programmable Unit). Which means, for instance, let’s say you have a game that only needs half the power of the processor. It can temporarily reprogram or restructure the other half of the processor to act as additional RAM, or restructure it to act as an additional graphics processor instead of a regular processor, for even more gaming goodness.
It’s true that the 360 will have a greater immediate share of the next-gen market by coming out earlier, but that will also give the PS3 a chance to see what worked and what didn’t work with the 360 and tweak their machine to make it even more attractive.
Besides, the Dreamcast came out a while before the other systems comparable to it did, and it didn’t end up doing too well. The same can be said for the Atari Jaguar.May 16, 2006 at 10:54 am #21183
See, that’s why I’m a ‘wait and see’ guy. I’m not gung-ho to defend a particular company til the death for a couple reasons. One, is that although I pointed out a couple things that may hurt the system, I don’t know as much about it as other people. I may bark what I’ve heard about the graphics being too close to decifer, but obviously that’s a shallow statement compared to what you know about it’s inner sanctum. Also, being that I have to step down and openly admit that you’re going into realms that I just don’t understand… Because I’m dumb.
So, perhaps later this year, when PS3 comes out, it will be the ‘next’-next-gen. Who knows? Maybe you, but not me. Then again, it wouldn’t shock me if the momentum of who’s on top of the console wars shifted once again for this generation.May 16, 2006 at 3:28 pm #21176robParticipant
In my opinion, as silly as it seems, it comes down to the games. It really shouldn’t matter if you have the best graphics in the world — if the games aren’t good, then all that doesn’t matter. The reason PS2 got so much of a hold was that it came out first, it was backwards compatible, and it had exclusive games you couldn’t play anywhere else. After the Gamecube and Xbox came out, I think the games played better (and looked better) on those two, but that’s personal preference, really.
So, I wouldn’t count PS3 out, really, but it sounds like if they’ve lost a lot of their exclusive properties and they might have a long road ahead of them.May 16, 2006 at 7:41 pm #21177
I will say that one of the main deciding factors in me getting the original PlayStation was that it was going to have Final Fantasy VII.
I will concede that just because a system has amazing capabilities doesn’t mean that the games will be amazing. But it does mean that there is at least the opportunity for games to use those capabilities and be amazing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.