The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why was the Playstation such a hit?
*Well, Sony gave development kits away for nothing and offered superb support for developers.
*They bought a few small developers of their own
*They gave deals on publishing costs if developers made games exclusive for the Playstation
*The console was very easy to develop for thanks to its fab design.......
And the list goes on. However, the biggest reason Sony came out top is because they had no competition. Nintendo officially said that only they would be allowed to release launch games and have development kits for the first few months of release, and shunned developers like Square and Namco. They raised publishing costs for the "privilidge" of printing games on a Nintendo consoles, and ended up with an over priced, under supported console- it released with ONE game, and only had 4 games 3 months after launch!
So, by the end of the 32bit era Sony had 100million gamers with Playstations out there.
However, things have changed very much. Firstly, Sony's approach:
Rather than encourage developers to get on the PS2 bandwagon by making the console super-user friendly and offering great price incentives, Sony have relised that the console will sell on the back of the Playstation anyway. So developers wuite simply have to support it because (when the console was in development) there was still no news from the Nintendo camp, and the Dreamcast just wasn't selling enough games.
So, first big change Sony made: the console architeture. Rather than do a Playstation and base the console on easy-to-develop-for PC architecture Sony rushed the design of the console. Ok, maybe that doesn't do it justice. Sony have ended up with a console based on a completely new type of architecture that will, in theory, allow every once of power to be used for gaming.
However, big problem. No one has made games for any machine like this before. In fact, Sony knew this, so made middleware- premade graphics engines and the like that developers can buy off the shelf and use. The idea being that after a few months developers could go on their own way and make games from scratch. In fact, the console is proving so hard to develop for that middleware companies are making millions, and small developers can't program the graphics engines et al from scratch. Not only that, but middleware makes it impossible to squeeze all the power from a console anyway! So the whole new architecture is wasted!
Ok, so Sony went stray on that... but it gets worse. Development kits were substandard, under supported and expensive- the exact oposite of what made the Playstation popular! Not only did the kist not have simply things like "anti aliasing" to get rid of jaggy edges, but even now such problems persist!
But who cares! The console will sell anyway. Developers HAD to support it because people were guranteed to buy it, and people would buy it because it was so well supported. All good.
But times are changing- Nintendo have actually come around and made a fairly good console- easy to develop for, low cost and PC based... reminds me of the Playstation!
That's not really a problem- Sony will always stay dominant in a 2 console market. However, add Microsoft to the equation and you have a problem. They have basically "done a playstation". MS has bought some big development names, made excluive contracts with others, got a huge marketting budget and made the console esy to develop for. It is just a Playstation all over again!
So the Xbox won't storm the market- Sony are too far ahead. But it will take a big chunk of it. And the worry is that in the next console generation, if Sony continue to be so arrogant about their market strength, then they will falter. Not die out, but certainly lose a lot of ground to Microsoft.
Sonic
*Well, Sony gave development kits away for nothing and offered superb support for developers.
*They bought a few small developers of their own
*They gave deals on publishing costs if developers made games exclusive for the Playstation
*The console was very easy to develop for thanks to its fab design.......
And the list goes on. However, the biggest reason Sony came out top is because they had no competition. Nintendo officially said that only they would be allowed to release launch games and have development kits for the first few months of release, and shunned developers like Square and Namco. They raised publishing costs for the "privilidge" of printing games on a Nintendo consoles, and ended up with an over priced, under supported console- it released with ONE game, and only had 4 games 3 months after launch!
So, by the end of the 32bit era Sony had 100million gamers with Playstations out there.
However, things have changed very much. Firstly, Sony's approach:
Rather than encourage developers to get on the PS2 bandwagon by making the console super-user friendly and offering great price incentives, Sony have relised that the console will sell on the back of the Playstation anyway. So developers wuite simply have to support it because (when the console was in development) there was still no news from the Nintendo camp, and the Dreamcast just wasn't selling enough games.
So, first big change Sony made: the console architeture. Rather than do a Playstation and base the console on easy-to-develop-for PC architecture Sony rushed the design of the console. Ok, maybe that doesn't do it justice. Sony have ended up with a console based on a completely new type of architecture that will, in theory, allow every once of power to be used for gaming.
However, big problem. No one has made games for any machine like this before. In fact, Sony knew this, so made middleware- premade graphics engines and the like that developers can buy off the shelf and use. The idea being that after a few months developers could go on their own way and make games from scratch. In fact, the console is proving so hard to develop for that middleware companies are making millions, and small developers can't program the graphics engines et al from scratch. Not only that, but middleware makes it impossible to squeeze all the power from a console anyway! So the whole new architecture is wasted!
Ok, so Sony went stray on that... but it gets worse. Development kits were substandard, under supported and expensive- the exact oposite of what made the Playstation popular! Not only did the kist not have simply things like "anti aliasing" to get rid of jaggy edges, but even now such problems persist!
But who cares! The console will sell anyway. Developers HAD to support it because people were guranteed to buy it, and people would buy it because it was so well supported. All good.
But times are changing- Nintendo have actually come around and made a fairly good console- easy to develop for, low cost and PC based... reminds me of the Playstation!
That's not really a problem- Sony will always stay dominant in a 2 console market. However, add Microsoft to the equation and you have a problem. They have basically "done a playstation". MS has bought some big development names, made excluive contracts with others, got a huge marketting budget and made the console esy to develop for. It is just a Playstation all over again!
So the Xbox won't storm the market- Sony are too far ahead. But it will take a big chunk of it. And the worry is that in the next console generation, if Sony continue to be so arrogant about their market strength, then they will falter. Not die out, but certainly lose a lot of ground to Microsoft.
Sonic
Page:
We seem to have gone HUGLEY off the point here...
Bonus, I actually own a PS2! However, it is clear that the console was no where near as easy to begin developing for as other consoles. Sony even admit this: they got several of their 2nd party companies to make middleware to give developers premade, off the shelf code they could buy and use in games.
The idea was that after a few months of using middleware developers would be able to code games from scratch themselves.... this is not happening. Instead middleware makers have gained huge share value simply because of the massive demand for the software.
Now, Bonus, I think you'll agree that if a game uses a premade graphics engine that is not tailored to the game itself then it'll never get the full capacitity from the console.
As you point out, big companies, with big resources and lots of capital can code their own games and do this very well. The only reason MGS2 looks so stunning is that Sony didn't deliver development tools to Konami on time, so Konami made their own, superior dev kits!
Most companies, of course, are no where near as big as Konami. Whereas Konami employ hundreds of employees, most developers are actually far smaller and have less than 30. So although you are right to say that there are some absolutely great games like MGS2 and GT3, there is still a huge lack of massive quality from small developers- who essentially made te Playstation into a major player to begin with.
Losing loyalty from such small developers, who joined the PSX bandwagon thanks to excellent support, low dev kit costs and low game development cost, will only deprive Sony of some of the biggest tallent in gaming- and this is what worries me.
Sonic
Bonus, I actually own a PS2! However, it is clear that the console was no where near as easy to begin developing for as other consoles. Sony even admit this: they got several of their 2nd party companies to make middleware to give developers premade, off the shelf code they could buy and use in games.
The idea was that after a few months of using middleware developers would be able to code games from scratch themselves.... this is not happening. Instead middleware makers have gained huge share value simply because of the massive demand for the software.
Now, Bonus, I think you'll agree that if a game uses a premade graphics engine that is not tailored to the game itself then it'll never get the full capacitity from the console.
As you point out, big companies, with big resources and lots of capital can code their own games and do this very well. The only reason MGS2 looks so stunning is that Sony didn't deliver development tools to Konami on time, so Konami made their own, superior dev kits!
Most companies, of course, are no where near as big as Konami. Whereas Konami employ hundreds of employees, most developers are actually far smaller and have less than 30. So although you are right to say that there are some absolutely great games like MGS2 and GT3, there is still a huge lack of massive quality from small developers- who essentially made te Playstation into a major player to begin with.
Losing loyalty from such small developers, who joined the PSX bandwagon thanks to excellent support, low dev kit costs and low game development cost, will only deprive Sony of some of the biggest tallent in gaming- and this is what worries me.
Sonic
Righty, lets have a good go at this one.......
;)
The Playstation was no where near based on PC styled architecture. The processor alone in the PS is a RISC processor which would instantly set it miles apart from any PC system ever devised, funnily enough the Gamecube and the Playstation 2 also use RISC processors, because these processors can do away with a lot of the code density of larger instruction sets, and basically do more things more quickly.
In terms of the speed of the Xbox processor, again, it makes little sense. The architecture of the Playstation 2 is totally different from anything ever seen before so to directly compare it to any other system is just plain stupid, you can however look atacurate results already established on each system.
Can you point out any games on the Xbox or the Gamecube which look better than either MGS2 or GT3? If you can it'd be nice, because most other people haven't. If you try to tell me the games look better because they are a higher resolution I'll slap you, hard.
The animation, special effects and particle systems developed and already apparent on the PS2 are far better than any other system ever. If the Xbox or the Gamecube get a waterfall to look as good as the waterfall in Onimusha for the PS2, I'll lte you off. Or little things like light shining through the trees in GT3, or the quality of the animation in the characters on MGS2, or the simple little touches like how good explosions etc all look on most PS2 games.
Other than some poor textures and low resolutions most games developed solely for the PS2 (not ported to or from elsewhere) look absolutely stunning, so leave it alone.
If you don't want to buy a PS2, don't.............
;)
The Playstation was no where near based on PC styled architecture. The processor alone in the PS is a RISC processor which would instantly set it miles apart from any PC system ever devised, funnily enough the Gamecube and the Playstation 2 also use RISC processors, because these processors can do away with a lot of the code density of larger instruction sets, and basically do more things more quickly.
In terms of the speed of the Xbox processor, again, it makes little sense. The architecture of the Playstation 2 is totally different from anything ever seen before so to directly compare it to any other system is just plain stupid, you can however look atacurate results already established on each system.
Can you point out any games on the Xbox or the Gamecube which look better than either MGS2 or GT3? If you can it'd be nice, because most other people haven't. If you try to tell me the games look better because they are a higher resolution I'll slap you, hard.
The animation, special effects and particle systems developed and already apparent on the PS2 are far better than any other system ever. If the Xbox or the Gamecube get a waterfall to look as good as the waterfall in Onimusha for the PS2, I'll lte you off. Or little things like light shining through the trees in GT3, or the quality of the animation in the characters on MGS2, or the simple little touches like how good explosions etc all look on most PS2 games.
Other than some poor textures and low resolutions most games developed solely for the PS2 (not ported to or from elsewhere) look absolutely stunning, so leave it alone.
If you don't want to buy a PS2, don't.............
You could do worse! :-)
Ah, So really, I should sod all this next gen malarky and go back to playing on my Amiga 600.
I'd save a bit of cash as well...
I'd save a bit of cash as well...
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> In fact, Sony's arcade devision is struggling- almost > every developer is now using Sega Naomi or Namco
> arcade boards- the PS2 boards are too expensive in
> comparisson.
I wasn't aware Sony had an arcade division as such, to be honest; but the latest Namco boards ARE PS2 technology, so how are they too expensive? In the end, though, it's a little irrelevant, as arcades are pretty much a dying entity. The power of home consoles has passed what the arcades can affordably achieved.
> only big developers like Konami can really afford to do this.
But nevertheless, small developers are still creating games for the machine; it isn't driving anyone away, because they know that PS2 is where serious money can be made - your own industry figures posted elsewhere indicate that. So is the point even worth making?
> Oh, and Tyla, I'd like to know what you mean about there
> being no limit on the power of the PS2... eh?
Though I think he could have explained it better, I know exactly what Tyla means - the limits of the other machines are already known - particularly the Gamecube, where Nintendo have set in their system documentation exactly how many polygons can be drawn before performance elsewhere is affected. On the PS2 this is not the case; while there is obviously a physical system limit, no-one actually knows the performance limits, as it can differ according to the coding methods used and the over-all content of the game.
> And since thje Xbox actually has a faster processor,
> even though the architecture does not push it to the limits as much, it is still
> more powerful than the PS2 processort anyway!
As anyone who knows processors will confirm, a faster processor in terms of MHz/GHz doesn't necessarily mean a faster system. Intel processors are not truly multi-tasking units like, for example, Motorola RISC chips, or the custom processors used in the other systems - so they *need* to have higher clock cycles than the other systems in order to do the same amount of work.
Hence the 8MHz Motorola 68000 processor in the Amiga 500, combined with its custom sound and graphics chips, gave a level of performance equivalent to a 486 50MHz Intel-powered PC.
Intel solve all performance problems simply by throwing more MHz at it, whereas if they actually brought their architecture out of the 80's, they'd probably get far superior performance.
> Finally, Wookie, what I meant about the PSX being based
> on PC archiutecture was that it has multiple chips - one
> for sounds, one for vectors etc etc. This was completely
> unlike other consoles (eg the N64)
Far more like the Amiga setup than a PC, I think. Amiga had that architecture in the early 80's, along with AutoConfig (the Amiga version of Plug & Play). In terms of dedicated processors etc., PC's have only recently caught on and caught up.
> In fact, Sony's arcade devision is struggling- almost > every developer is now using Sega Naomi or Namco
> arcade boards- the PS2 boards are too expensive in
> comparisson.
I wasn't aware Sony had an arcade division as such, to be honest; but the latest Namco boards ARE PS2 technology, so how are they too expensive? In the end, though, it's a little irrelevant, as arcades are pretty much a dying entity. The power of home consoles has passed what the arcades can affordably achieved.
> only big developers like Konami can really afford to do this.
But nevertheless, small developers are still creating games for the machine; it isn't driving anyone away, because they know that PS2 is where serious money can be made - your own industry figures posted elsewhere indicate that. So is the point even worth making?
> Oh, and Tyla, I'd like to know what you mean about there
> being no limit on the power of the PS2... eh?
Though I think he could have explained it better, I know exactly what Tyla means - the limits of the other machines are already known - particularly the Gamecube, where Nintendo have set in their system documentation exactly how many polygons can be drawn before performance elsewhere is affected. On the PS2 this is not the case; while there is obviously a physical system limit, no-one actually knows the performance limits, as it can differ according to the coding methods used and the over-all content of the game.
> And since thje Xbox actually has a faster processor,
> even though the architecture does not push it to the limits as much, it is still
> more powerful than the PS2 processort anyway!
As anyone who knows processors will confirm, a faster processor in terms of MHz/GHz doesn't necessarily mean a faster system. Intel processors are not truly multi-tasking units like, for example, Motorola RISC chips, or the custom processors used in the other systems - so they *need* to have higher clock cycles than the other systems in order to do the same amount of work.
Hence the 8MHz Motorola 68000 processor in the Amiga 500, combined with its custom sound and graphics chips, gave a level of performance equivalent to a 486 50MHz Intel-powered PC.
Intel solve all performance problems simply by throwing more MHz at it, whereas if they actually brought their architecture out of the 80's, they'd probably get far superior performance.
> Finally, Wookie, what I meant about the PSX being based
> on PC archiutecture was that it has multiple chips - one
> for sounds, one for vectors etc etc. This was completely
> unlike other consoles (eg the N64)
Far more like the Amiga setup than a PC, I think. Amiga had that architecture in the early 80's, along with AutoConfig (the Amiga version of Plug & Play). In terms of dedicated processors etc., PC's have only recently caught on and caught up.
you have 2 GAD's waiting for you sonic, why havn't you told them the game you want yet?
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
"Now the
> tide has turned, and Namco have actually developed System 246 - an arcade board
> based on the PS2 hardware. - http://www.klov.com/N/Namco_System_246.html"
In fact, Sony's arcade devision is struggling- almost every developer is now using Sega Naomi or Namco arcade boards- the PS2 boards are too expensive in comparisson.
"And
> once again, the comments of developers who have said that the PS2 is not
> difficult to develop for, just 'different' - are being ignored. Don't ask me to
> quote who, because I can't remember anyone except Volition. The articles have
> appeared in various issues of PSM2, Official PS2 mag, and PSW."
Yes, we could go on and on about this. But the fact reamins that it is IMPOSSIBLE for small developers to code games from scratch, meaning it is therefore impossible for them to squeeze all the power from the console. So, Tyla and Wookie, the whole idea of the PS2 being developed to allow all the power to be squeezed from it has been turned into nonsense- only big developers like Konami can really afford to do this.
Oh, and Tyla, I'd like to know what you mean about there being no limit on the power of the PS2... eh? There obviously is a limit. But the idea of the design is that the console is made to play games, and not to be used as a PC. This means more power can be got from it's processor than using other architectures, but this certainly isn't endless.
And since thje Xbox actually has a faster processor, even though the architecture does not push it to the limits as much, it is still more powerful than the PS2 processort anyway! Not that this has anything to do with the console being better!
Finally, Wookie, what I meant about the PSX being based on PC archiutecture was that it has multiple chips-m one for sounds, one for vectors etc etc. This was completely unlike other consoles (eg the N64) that had sound, vectors and the rest all done by the main processor itself. In that respect the PSX is very closely linked with PC architecture and that is what allowed it to be coded for so well.
Sonic
"Now the
> tide has turned, and Namco have actually developed System 246 - an arcade board
> based on the PS2 hardware. - http://www.klov.com/N/Namco_System_246.html"
In fact, Sony's arcade devision is struggling- almost every developer is now using Sega Naomi or Namco arcade boards- the PS2 boards are too expensive in comparisson.
"And
> once again, the comments of developers who have said that the PS2 is not
> difficult to develop for, just 'different' - are being ignored. Don't ask me to
> quote who, because I can't remember anyone except Volition. The articles have
> appeared in various issues of PSM2, Official PS2 mag, and PSW."
Yes, we could go on and on about this. But the fact reamins that it is IMPOSSIBLE for small developers to code games from scratch, meaning it is therefore impossible for them to squeeze all the power from the console. So, Tyla and Wookie, the whole idea of the PS2 being developed to allow all the power to be squeezed from it has been turned into nonsense- only big developers like Konami can really afford to do this.
Oh, and Tyla, I'd like to know what you mean about there being no limit on the power of the PS2... eh? There obviously is a limit. But the idea of the design is that the console is made to play games, and not to be used as a PC. This means more power can be got from it's processor than using other architectures, but this certainly isn't endless.
And since thje Xbox actually has a faster processor, even though the architecture does not push it to the limits as much, it is still more powerful than the PS2 processort anyway! Not that this has anything to do with the console being better!
Finally, Wookie, what I meant about the PSX being based on PC archiutecture was that it has multiple chips-m one for sounds, one for vectors etc etc. This was completely unlike other consoles (eg the N64) that had sound, vectors and the rest all done by the main processor itself. In that respect the PSX is very closely linked with PC architecture and that is what allowed it to be coded for so well.
Sonic
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
"Now the
> tide has turned, and Namco have actually developed System 246 - an arcade board
> based on the PS2 hardware. - http://www.klov.com/N/Namco_System_246.html"
In fact, Sony's arcade devision is struggling- almost every developer is now using Sega Naomi or Namco arcade boards- the PS2 boards are too expensive in comparisson.
"And
> once again, the comments of developers who have said that the PS2 is not
> difficult to develop for, just 'different' - are being ignored. Don't ask me to
> quote who, because I can't remember anyone except Volition. The articles have
> appeared in various issues of PSM2, Official PS2 mag, and PSW."
Yes, we could go on and on about this. But the fact reamins that it is IMPOSSIBLE for small developers to code games from scratch, meaning it is therefore impossible for them to squeeze all the power from the console. So, Tyla and Wookie, the whole idea of the PS2 being developed to allow all the power to be squeezed from it has been turned into nonsense- only big developers like Konami can really afford to do this.
Oh, and Tyla, I'd like to know what you mean about there being no limit on the power of the PS2... eh? There obviously is a limit. But the idea of the design is that the console is made to play games, and not to be used as a PC. This means more power can be got from it's processor than using other architectures, but this certainly isn't endless.
And since thje Xbox actually has a faster processor, even though the architecture does not push it to the limits as much, it is still more powerful than the PS2 processort anyway! Not that this has anything to do with the console being better!
Finally, Wookie, what I meant about the PSX being based on PC archiutecture was that it has multiple chips-m one for sounds, one for vectors etc etc. This was completely unlike other consoles (eg the N64) that had sound, vectors and the rest all done by the main processor itself. In that respect the PSX is very closely linked with PC architecture and that is what allowed it to be coded for so well.
Sonic
"Now the
> tide has turned, and Namco have actually developed System 246 - an arcade board
> based on the PS2 hardware. - http://www.klov.com/N/Namco_System_246.html"
In fact, Sony's arcade devision is struggling- almost every developer is now using Sega Naomi or Namco arcade boards- the PS2 boards are too expensive in comparisson.
"And
> once again, the comments of developers who have said that the PS2 is not
> difficult to develop for, just 'different' - are being ignored. Don't ask me to
> quote who, because I can't remember anyone except Volition. The articles have
> appeared in various issues of PSM2, Official PS2 mag, and PSW."
Yes, we could go on and on about this. But the fact reamins that it is IMPOSSIBLE for small developers to code games from scratch, meaning it is therefore impossible for them to squeeze all the power from the console. So, Tyla and Wookie, the whole idea of the PS2 being developed to allow all the power to be squeezed from it has been turned into nonsense- only big developers like Konami can really afford to do this.
Oh, and Tyla, I'd like to know what you mean about there being no limit on the power of the PS2... eh? There obviously is a limit. But the idea of the design is that the console is made to play games, and not to be used as a PC. This means more power can be got from it's processor than using other architectures, but this certainly isn't endless.
And since thje Xbox actually has a faster processor, even though the architecture does not push it to the limits as much, it is still more powerful than the PS2 processort anyway! Not that this has anything to do with the console being better!
Finally, Wookie, what I meant about the PSX being based on PC archiutecture was that it has multiple chips-m one for sounds, one for vectors etc etc. This was completely unlike other consoles (eg the N64) that had sound, vectors and the rest all done by the main processor itself. In that respect the PSX is very closely linked with PC architecture and that is what allowed it to be coded for so well.
Sonic
Its all down to the kind of gamer u are and the funds you have. Im not particularly fond of the PS2, I rented one a few weeks ago with its star games and apart from GT3, it failed to impress. The x-box, with all the goodies it is offering, will just be too hard to afford and the gamecube just doesn`t have my kinda games. So right now, I`m lost. I am saving up for an X-box but I have a mate who can get me a PS2 for £150. I think it`ll be the PS2. Console wars... unless x-box really kills it, the PS2 will come out on top. It is just too hard to resist. Ninty, well, we`ll just have to see
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> alik wrote:
> sony will walk over the x-box and i think that microsoft will
> change their image
> for the bad side of computers.
You are, perhaps, the most biased person I have ever seen in
> my 2 years on the forums.
Now, if you want to post again in one of my topics, make
> valid points, not poor opinions based on your own flawed, biased views.
> Ok?
Sonic
I tilt my hat to you Sonic!
> alik wrote:
> sony will walk over the x-box and i think that microsoft will
> change their image
> for the bad side of computers.
You are, perhaps, the most biased person I have ever seen in
> my 2 years on the forums.
Now, if you want to post again in one of my topics, make
> valid points, not poor opinions based on your own flawed, biased views.
> Ok?
Sonic
I tilt my hat to you Sonic!
Page: