The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Really? And what is the 'mornal' way of creating games? ;-)
Sorry, didn't make myself clear here did I?
I was refering to the current systems like OpenGL, And the pre built tools available to games developers. Most of Sony's tools have been built from the ground up since it's birth like Renderware (GTA3 etc). It also adopts other tecnologies such as Nurb Rendering, Bizeier Curves and the ability to use Mpeg for compression. Something never used in a console before. Stuff which other firms have avoided, instead, relying on "old" ways from past consoles.
Obviously at the start there was the texture handling moans (now solved as they can be streamed directly from the DVD) and the Anti Aliasing (now solved with interlacing and selection)
I'm still interested in seeing the full potential of the system when they finally crack the twin vector units. The N64 had this ability and the only game to use them was Perfect Dark and no one had found a way to use them before.
GC have some pretty state of the art tech in their box thanks to IBM and the equivelent of the Mac G4 Velocity engine, and although it's poly count is the lowest of the 3, it's texture handling is tuley awesome!!
As for the XBOX, this has been based on OpenGL and PC arcitecture, (PENTIUM **snigger**)and from what I've played so far, it does feel like your playing a PC game! maybe it will force a major advancement in the Open Soource market for development tool? But OpenGL has been one of those things that have always made PC games look the way they do!!
> Really? And what is the 'mornal' way of creating games? ;-)
Sorry, didn't make myself clear here did I?
I was refering to the current systems like OpenGL, And the pre built tools available to games developers. Most of Sony's tools have been built from the ground up since it's birth like Renderware (GTA3 etc). It also adopts other tecnologies such as Nurb Rendering, Bizeier Curves and the ability to use Mpeg for compression. Something never used in a console before. Stuff which other firms have avoided, instead, relying on "old" ways from past consoles.
Obviously at the start there was the texture handling moans (now solved as they can be streamed directly from the DVD) and the Anti Aliasing (now solved with interlacing and selection)
I'm still interested in seeing the full potential of the system when they finally crack the twin vector units. The N64 had this ability and the only game to use them was Perfect Dark and no one had found a way to use them before.
GC have some pretty state of the art tech in their box thanks to IBM and the equivelent of the Mac G4 Velocity engine, and although it's poly count is the lowest of the 3, it's texture handling is tuley awesome!!
As for the XBOX, this has been based on OpenGL and PC arcitecture, (PENTIUM **snigger**)and from what I've played so far, it does feel like your playing a PC game! maybe it will force a major advancement in the Open Soource market for development tool? But OpenGL has been one of those things that have always made PC games look the way they do!!
Tyla wrote:
> Sony wanted to push the boundaries and see what could be
> done if they strayed from the "Mornal" way of
> creating games
Really? And what is the 'mornal' way of creating games? ;-)
> Sony wanted to push the boundaries and see what could be
> done if they strayed from the "Mornal" way of
> creating games
Really? And what is the 'mornal' way of creating games? ;-)
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> 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
And once again, the comments of developers who have said that the PS2 is not difficult to develop for, just 'different' - are being ignored
In theory the PS2 arcihtecture is still the most powerful of them all as it's open ended (has no limitations). Unlike the XBOX and GCN, they have pre defined benchmarks that they have been built for... Sony, on the other hand produced a machine, which once mastered, would open up endless possibilities. The figures you see for poly counts etc are just averages, not it's full capability.
Sony wanted to push the boundaries and see what could be done if they strayed from the "Mornal" way of creating games, and look at some of the results!!
> 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
And once again, the comments of developers who have said that the PS2 is not difficult to develop for, just 'different' - are being ignored
In theory the PS2 arcihtecture is still the most powerful of them all as it's open ended (has no limitations). Unlike the XBOX and GCN, they have pre defined benchmarks that they have been built for... Sony, on the other hand produced a machine, which once mastered, would open up endless possibilities. The figures you see for poly counts etc are just averages, not it's full capability.
Sony wanted to push the boundaries and see what could be done if they strayed from the "Mornal" way of creating games, and look at some of the results!!
I actually think Sony are being anything but complacent. Their market tactics, such as a price reduction at Christmas and another in the pipeline for Xbox release shows they are wary of potential entrants and are doing all they can to keep their market share
PlayStation based on PC architecture?
The PlayStation 1 was based on Namco's System 11 arcade board - http://www.klov.com/S/Soul_Edge_Ver.II.html
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
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.
I don't think Sony have become complacent at all - they've just tried to offer developers something new in the way of development, and the developers are getting on with it.
It may well be that Sony have to be particularly careful in the 'next round', but all I've ever read about Sony from developers is that they are an extremely good and helpful company when it comes to developer support. So *if* they are getting any direct negativ feedback from developers, you can pretty much guarantee that they are taking it all on board, and any problems will be rectified for the next machine.
Whatever the budgets of MS and Nintendo, Sony have already spent far more than that over the last 6-7 years, developing the machines and getting to the top of the pile. If anyone thinks they're about give up their position easily... well, more fool them!
The PlayStation 1 was based on Namco's System 11 arcade board - http://www.klov.com/S/Soul_Edge_Ver.II.html
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
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.
I don't think Sony have become complacent at all - they've just tried to offer developers something new in the way of development, and the developers are getting on with it.
It may well be that Sony have to be particularly careful in the 'next round', but all I've ever read about Sony from developers is that they are an extremely good and helpful company when it comes to developer support. So *if* they are getting any direct negativ feedback from developers, you can pretty much guarantee that they are taking it all on board, and any problems will be rectified for the next machine.
Whatever the budgets of MS and Nintendo, Sony have already spent far more than that over the last 6-7 years, developing the machines and getting to the top of the pile. If anyone thinks they're about give up their position easily... well, more fool them!
Great post Sonic. Sony have indeed bagged a lot of cash after the success of the original Playstation and they were aware that they have to spend it well. Gamers were anxcious for the new-generation console because Dreamcast was already boasting a 128-bit engine. Despite it being a flop, SOny knew that sooner or later they had to move into the future.
The lack of quality games at launch and in the following months was due to the lack ov the dev kits. Only 3 developers including Eden Studiod (the team behind V-Rally 3) got the first dev kits in summer 2000. Most other developers had to rush out their games for launch since they just didnt have enough time to practice on the new kits and finmd out the strong and the weak points.
The developers did have to work very hard to get used to the new "Emotion Engine" and be able to develop decent games for the console.
People say that Sony have a great opponent in the X-Box since Bill Gates can probably buy out every developemnt team in the world. And yes, it certainly will pay off. But in my opinion 1)there is no need to say who is going to win the console war, because it is totally irrelevant. The conosles cater for different people with different tastes-som will find what they want on the X-Box and some will on the PS2 and 2) I agree with you SOnic, because there are just too many people who know about the PS2 and since it got such a headstart it is bound to be more successful than others. And looking at the line-up of games for 2002, the future is bright...
The lack of quality games at launch and in the following months was due to the lack ov the dev kits. Only 3 developers including Eden Studiod (the team behind V-Rally 3) got the first dev kits in summer 2000. Most other developers had to rush out their games for launch since they just didnt have enough time to practice on the new kits and finmd out the strong and the weak points.
The developers did have to work very hard to get used to the new "Emotion Engine" and be able to develop decent games for the console.
People say that Sony have a great opponent in the X-Box since Bill Gates can probably buy out every developemnt team in the world. And yes, it certainly will pay off. But in my opinion 1)there is no need to say who is going to win the console war, because it is totally irrelevant. The conosles cater for different people with different tastes-som will find what they want on the X-Box and some will on the PS2 and 2) I agree with you SOnic, because there are just too many people who know about the PS2 and since it got such a headstart it is bound to be more successful than others. And looking at the line-up of games for 2002, the future is bright...
alik wrote:
> sony will walk over the x-box and i think that microsoft will change their image
> for the bad side of computers. they should have stuck to producing pc software
> and leave the consoles to the big names lkke sony and nintendo, i am not saying
> microsoft isn't a big name just not in console gaming!
You are, perhaps, the most biased person I have ever seen in my 2 years on the forums. Facts ofr you:
*Sony are not the best. Ninty, MS and Sony have all got great consoles.
*The Xbox line up is one of the strongest launches ever
*If you judge MS by their PC software and NOT their games and console then you are really not worthy to be called a gamer... or intelligent for that matter.
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
> sony will walk over the x-box and i think that microsoft will change their image
> for the bad side of computers. they should have stuck to producing pc software
> and leave the consoles to the big names lkke sony and nintendo, i am not saying
> microsoft isn't a big name just not in console gaming!
You are, perhaps, the most biased person I have ever seen in my 2 years on the forums. Facts ofr you:
*Sony are not the best. Ninty, MS and Sony have all got great consoles.
*The Xbox line up is one of the strongest launches ever
*If you judge MS by their PC software and NOT their games and console then you are really not worthy to be called a gamer... or intelligent for that matter.
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
sony will walk over the x-box and i think that microsoft will change their image for the bad side of computers. they should have stuck to producing pc software and leave the consoles to the big names lkke sony and nintendo, i am not saying microsoft isn't a big name just not in console gaming!
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: