-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ken Kutaragi : "I can produce the PS3 anytime" (or: DrGAKMAN's meltdown thread)
- Thread starter Twix
- Start date
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Oblivion said:
Yes they did publish it. Under all the monthly sales chart, it was easily forgotten that it was listed under SCEA still going like 5000+ sales all these years later.
SolidSnakex
Member
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Exactly, it seems that people don't remember just how big of a deal that FF7 commercial was. The FF series never even hit a million outside of Japan and all of a sudden it was a multi platnium series and it's due to that commercial.
Link said:
I say postivie things about Nintendo sometimes, but not that positive.
SolidSnakex
Member
Oblivion said:
But its impossible to say if the results would've been the same. Sony's marketing style was much different than Sega's. Sega's was much more of marketing toward teens (Fly, Playstation, Fly), Sony went and marketed toward adults.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
mrklaw said:
Agreed. Although you have to admire the Sony marketting machine. Best on the planet.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
cyberheater said:
No, that belongs to apple
xaosslug
Member
Agent Icebeezy said:
I don't know... Apple's marketing is a force to be reckoned with, to be sure. But, Sony took something that had been intrinsically perceived as a "geeky" and "shameful" practice, and made it acceptable and cool, making themselves THE brand. Sony did all that in only 2 generations. Apple's good, but Sony's better.
It was more like:conker said:
N: Hey Sony, can you make a sound chip for us?
S: Sure! *toss*
N: ZOMG. This is fricken awesome.
S: Well your SNES is no slouch either. Hey partner, we've got an idea. Would you mind if we put your Super Nintendos into some things? Cars, toasters, refridgerators. Everything is better with an SNES in it. And you won't even have to do anything. We'll build them all ourselves.
N: Free userbase for the win! Go nuts! Make as many as you want! Knock yourselves out!
S: Alright. I guess our first product will be... THIS COMPETING VIDEOGAME CONSOLE! Mua ha ha! Har har har. Make your time.
N: Oh snap! That's not cool. Split the profits with us?
S: No.
N: (Grumble grumble. Who does Sony hate? Aha! Phillips!) Hey Phillips, make us a SNES CD. CD-i? Close enough.
*scene moves to CES*
S: Ta-daaa! We're the SNES CD!
N: Ta-daaa! We're the SNES CD!
S: What? Phillips? You bastards! What about the unwritten law? No jobs for round-eyes!
N: Sue us! Nyah nyah!
S: Damnit... hey Nintendo! Check this out. We're making out with Sega.
N: You sickos.
*continue until SNES dies of old age*
deadhorse32
Bad Art
Katana_Strikes
Member
Milhouse31 said:
Awesome! :lol
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
DCharlie said:
Man, you must have had fun... hopefully someone's clothes will be safe this time
.TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
Holy shit I can actually read his drunken mutterings.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
The interesting thing is, in Europe it was by the same people
Kutaragi would invent a new punch
But he wouldnt show it
Then he would say he did show it and then the fans would say
Fuck
Its too late and Im drunk
You know what, maybe I dont quite know what the hell he was trying to get at or say for that matter. :lol
DrGAKMAN said:
While I can agree with the 3D control point, iirc it is actually unclear what the N64 would have been had the PS1 not come out.
I don't remember information being known about N64 until well after PS1. It is more than possible the N64 design was a reaction to the PS1 - just as some of the changes to Saturn were. Common business practice would dictate that the current market has at least some influence on your design.
Prior to Sony bringing out thte PS1, Sega and Nintendo were not known for bringing out truly cutting-edge technology. They did not produce machines that forced them to take an initial loss - just look at SNES. It was certainly a nice system that did some cool graphics with a few neat tricks (mode 7), but they used a 3.57 (iirc) MHz CPU in order to cut costs.
It was not until after PS1 technology was known that a collaboration between Nintendo and SGI ocurred to my knowledge.
Huh? The second there was a system with media available that had sufficient memory for FMV, it was used. The PC-Engine CD, Sega CD, etc. all had cinemas including FMV and anime. CG became popular for cinemas mostly because it was eventually cost effective versus hiring actors.
Movie licensing existed since the Atari 2600.
Boobies? Boobies were quite common in American/European computer gaming, and for consoles ... it's mostly been the cultural influence of Japan.
DrGAKMAN said:
Alas, when a thing gains popular acceptance, that means all kinds of folks "discover" it. Mouthbreathers, too.
But look at it this way: Had videogaming not gained that mass acceptance, fewer people would be attracted to making and publishing games. There'd be less competition, fewer innovations, and fewer games to choose from. Game budgets would be smaller, and we wouldn't see so many blockbuster games on the scale of MGS2, GTA3, and the like.
By growing the industry, Sony's helped push it forward. As for games with FMV, explosions, and boobies, well - if you don't like them, you don't have to buy them. Again, you have more choices today because the industry's grown big enough to give you plenty.
I thought Jaguar's GPU was a dedicated chip as well actually?Onix said:
Ah, thanks I was thinking Saturn... but weren't there other factors that set PS1's geometry engine apart from modern 3D accelerators? Didn't it still render polygons differently than the later chips we're talking about and what's become standard today?Panajev2001a said:In a sense Saturn's 3D was a hack not because on the T&L implemented in software on the SH-2 side, but because of the 2D sprites based implementations of all that follows the T&L stages.
No alpha blending in most Saturn games is a direct result of this (you could not blend between sprites on the Saturn... for that amtter you cannot do this on GBA either using hardware sprites
To be fair, N64 was delayed 6-8 months so Mario 64 could be finished. The hardware was done quite abit earlier than release though, relative to PlayStation.EviLore said:
Not in America... they basically snatched SEGA's rulebook and ran with it. The US console market was just as "mainstream" in 1988 and 1998. Sony's only real inroads at dramatically expanding the market have been in Europe, where they successfully converted an established PC audience over to consoles, a feat both Nintendo and SEGA had really failed to do twice. Take away Europe and every PlayStation has sold about as well as NES did.Insertia said:
That said, yes Sony has highly influenced gaming. They just didn't pioneer any of the concepts they tend to take credit for... they're kinda like Nintendo in that regard. They've never done anything first, they just tend to do it best.
Link
The Autumn Wind
This is so wrong. We were hearing rumblings of "Project Reality" as early as 1993 or 1994. We had sample shots of Mario 64, Zelda 64, and others, all way before the N64 was released.Onix said:
Do you really believe that Mario 64 -- not to mention the analog stick -- was something that was slapped together as a response to the PS1?
jarrod said:
Things Nintendo did first:
First ever video game console: NES (previous systems were computers)
First ever controller. (Before controllers you had joysticks)
First games with story.
First robot (R.O.B)
Platformer (Super Mario Bros)
Top view game (LoZ)
RPG (Adventure of Link)
Bike game (Excitebike)
Schmup (Radarscope)
Fighting game (Urban Champion)
Boxing game: Punchout
Hockey game: Ice hockey
First ever Light gun.
First games with battery backup (Metroid & Kid Icarus)
You want me to go on?
First ever game to use polygons (Starfox)
Shoulder pads and triggers
First ever virtual reality console
First ever modern 3D game (Mario 64)
Introduced First Person Adventure (MP)
Target lock on function (OoT)
First ever portable
First monochrome games
Connectivity
They had memory cards in planning long before anyone else.
Analog stick
Rumble Pak
Touch screen
Revmote interface
I'm sure there are lots of things I'm forgetting.
Say no to Video Game revisionism.
deadhorse32
Bad Art
Link said:
And lets not forget PS1 was not a clear winner at that point. Saturn was outselling it in some part of the world (Japan).
Plus the whole Sillicon Graphics + Nintendo 64 was hyped to death. And KI & Cruis' USA (Ultra 64 FTW) were released in the arcade in the same timeframe Saturn & PSone were released in Japan.
hahahax said:
OMG THAT'S SO DUMB LET'S ALL LAUGH TO THAT GUY
jarrod said:
I cannot remember the specific details of 'Tom' and 'Jerry (Jaguar CPU and GPU iirc), but I do recall a discussion about it's graphics chip in the once great magazine Next Generation. I believe they purposefully made it general purpose, but very fast, so developers could choose how they wanted to make their engines. They wanted to see developers do some innovative things similar to how a lot PC games where made. They discussed such techniques as spheroids (cant remember the name of that cool PC game that used them), etc. It may have had some built in acceleration for certain techniques, but I know for certain it did not natively do acceleration for T&L as we know it. Not sure about vertices though.
I dont think standard rendering technique is what qualifies HW acceration, and you could be correct in that the PS1 did not handle it the way others did. What does qualify HW acceleration is dedicated HW that renders geometry, textures, lighting, etc. given simple native inputs and data. In the case of the PS1 GPU and other types of acceleration, basically the GPU is fed vertex data, a pointers to textures stored in memory, and info on the position of lights, etc. With that simple information, it has dedicated HW for rendering a 3D image without running SW algorithms on, in effect, a general purpose processor. Basically, it only does things one way and must be provided with the correct inputs.
With something like the Jaguar, there are SW algorithms running that simulate what a HW accelerator does. Basically, you lose flexibility, but gain speed/efficiency since it is all handled directly in HW.
Even with that delay the PS1 was started long before the N64. Ken began the design right after the Nintendo / Sony SNES Playstation add-on was killed, and I believe the contract with SGI did not occur until preliminary specs for the PS1 were known.
Red Blaster
Member
hahahax said:
This is very funny.
Link
The Autumn Wind
We could also go into the Super FX chip to see that 3D was obviously in Nintendo's plans for the future. I'm not discounting the PS1's influence on the market, but you're deluding yourself if you think Sony is the only reason console gaming is in 3D these days.
EDIT - hahahax, please stop, you're emabarrassing yourself.
EDIT - hahahax, please stop, you're emabarrassing yourself.
hahahax said:
you're probably a joke account but i am going to bite anyways.
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=41
Year: 1990
Link said:
The rumblings of Project Reality did not occur until after preliminary info was known about the PS1.
The initial 'sample shots' I remember where all renderings made for when they announced the collaboration with SGI. iirc, those initial shots were far beyond what the actual N64 HW ended up being capable of. While part of that was PR, I believe the main reason was because they had know idea what the finished system would be capable of because it was just starting development (and may have not been even to that level - it's possible that they had only made the contract with SGI at that point). Nintendo did not want to take a major loss, so the finished system was cost-cutted quite a bit.
If anything, that is a testament of how advanced the PS1 was for its time. The finished SGI GPU, while adding a number T&L effects the PS1 did not have, was not significantly more powerful than the PSX in terms of geometry. That is why the majority of N64 games had to pick their poison of less geometry and/or lower framerates versus PS1 games when using these effects.
I certainly do not believe Mario 64 was slapped together, and why would it have needed to be? If as I have stated, the N64 eventual design was a reaction to the PS1, there is no reason why Miyamoto would not have had years to work on Mario64. 1st party devs, and this is definitely how Miyamoto is known to work, begin working on games using PCs, etc. long in advance of the system. The actual game design itself can begin even before target-specs exist. Miyamoto began working on how Mario64 would play long before the N64 was done, let alone the specs where known. He simply knew it would be in 3D, and he designed the controller on how he would want to interact in a 3D world.
Tom and Jerry were Jaguar's parallel CPUs actually. It had a seperate dedicated GPU, as well a DSP for audio and as a 3rd general 68000 chip to tie it all together iirc.Onix said:
Would the SVP qualify as this then? It was basically a cut down core of the GPU used SEGA's Model 1 board that was co-developed between SEGA, Fujitsu and General Electric Aerospace. It could only render simple flat shaded polygons on 8x8 patterns but that was really all it could do... it wasn't a general co-CPU like the Super FX/FX2 chips and was quite a bit more expensive (hence VR's $100 starting price).Onix said:
Nintendo and Sony's deal fell through in mid 1991 (with Nintendo announcing plans with Phillips), "Project Reality" was then publically announced in mid 1993. It's arguable "who started first", but it's pretty clear that both Nintendo and Sony were looking to and developing 3D technologies for gaming applications concurrently. SEGA and Namco were doing the same thing in arcades... the market was clearly headed this direction, with or without any of them. None of their distinct platforms were really in direct response the other (PS-X vs N64, Model 1 vs System 21), they all would've been developed anyway and overlapped in terms of R&D scheduling.Onix said:
Mr. Lemming
Member
blackadde said:
Not to be a killjoy but go back a bit farther, like 1983:
http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=&game_id=8172
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
:lol This thread went from funny to sad to pathetic to FUCKING HILARIOUS in 5 pages.hahahax said:
jarrod said:
As I stated, I do not recall the specifics of the system. Regardless, I believe the GPU was more general purpose for the reasons I stated above.
I understand it had 3D abilities from the get-go, that is not my point.
I may not have been clear previously and it think some of my statements are being lumped together with others, so let me restate my position.
I do not believe Sony invented 3D. Based on such things as the SNES having mode7, the FX line, Sega CDs scaling, the Saturn SVP, etc., obviously the idea of 3D existed, and Im sure most felt it was the eventual future. The popularity of Doom was certainly an indication of people wanting 3D. My point is the impact Sony had on the when, and the how.
The priorities of the initial design of the Saturn are clear. Sega envisioned the system as being the ultimate 2D platform, with some 3D abilities available for developers to experiment with. It is quite obvious where their priority was at the time - 2D. While it is not entirely clear what the N64 would have been had PS1 not existed, there are some signs that would point to a similar priority. With the SNES, Nintendo looked to what Sega did (and the market in general) waited for costs to come down, and then brought out a system that while more advanced, was generally of the same goals. They where not really a HW-centric company, and did not try to push technology to the point where they would need to take a loss in order to achieve a realistic price-point. They relied on their IPs, and the genius of Miyamotos gameplay for introducing new interaction concepts. The place they did make great strides was in the controller controller design, but their main home system was not a place they generally wanted to go all that different then their competition. Another example of this is the fact that in the past, they had not made the sort of major collaboration with high-tech companies we see common today.
It would seem that both Sega and Nintendo were content with prioritizing improved 2D as their main goal for at least one more generation, while also giving some level of 3D performance. Enter Sony. While generally speaking, Nintendo and Sega were not easily influenced by the ideas of start-ups, this was something entirely different. For one, it was Sony they knew full well the money Sony had, the R&D Sony had, the name-recognition, etc. What really set the stage however, was the reaction Sony received from the media, developers, and gamers. Sony was clearly setting 3D as their (basically) one-and-only priority and everyone was eating it up. The media-storm that ensued convinced Sega that they had miscalculated where their priority should have been and forced them to re-engineer the Saturn.
That is my first point and details the when of my argument. I believe Sega and Nintendo had envisioned one more generation of 2D graphics/gameplay as being the priority. They would have some 3D capability, but they wanted to kind of wean us towards it and wait a generation before they went all out. I believe this was due to cost issues, and with 20/20 hindsight, a misread of gamers wants or at least their readiness to try out 3D.
The how is a combination of two things. Sonys willingness to use the razor-blade business model (take a loss on HW, make up for it with SW and SW licensing), and Ken Kutaragis engineering creativity. This razor-blade business model allowed Sony to really push the technology level that would be introduced in their console, something Sega and Nintendo had previously decided against. For Ken, he had a problem he needed a solution for. Once the Nintendo deal went sour, he had always envisioned 3D as being the way to go. Through plenty of discussions Im sure, he convinced Sony that they should really push the curve and should spend quite a bit more than their competition would have in the past.
Even with a greater budget, he needed to come up with a system that would do things with 3D that had not been done before. His solution was to design a dedicated chip that would render textured and shaded polygons in HW. While it may have been somewhat expensive, this was the first time someone had brought out a dedicated solution at anything approaching consumer pricing.
In summary, I am crediting Sony with the following:
They forced the priority of 3D graphics and gameplay at a time when the competition would have rather waited another generation. Again, even without Sony this would have happened eventually. The importance of Sony doing it then however, is that graphics and gameplay are far more advanced now then they would have been had Sony not joined the fray. It took a while for developers to get a handle on 3D control and cameras (and I would argue we still have a long way to go), now imagine if we were effectively a generation behind?
The other change I credit Sony with is the razor-blade business model. To me, it is actually a surprise Sonys higher-ups were ever convinced to go with this plan. Sony is traditionally an A/V company, and did not sell for loses prior to this at least not at the manufacturing level (obviously R&D costs are spread out over the life of a product). This business model has, and continues to give us graphics and sound that I believe are far more advanced for their time had Sony not forced the issue.
Two corollaries to this also exist. Ken Kutaragi does deserve specific praise for his solution to the how in regards to 3D. While the haters may not want to acknowledge it, he is praised by engineers for his designs including the PS1 GUI being the first real dedicated consumer level 3D accelerator. The other thing Sony should be credited for is in regards to convergence. Many of the features we see now, and will see in future consoles may well have not happened if not for Sonys vision.
How all of this contributed to enlarging the market, etc. has been discussed before and need not be reiterated. Note: I am not particularly saying whether all of these changes are good or bad. If you are against 3D gaming, or you hate the idea of convergence, etc. I can see why you are pissed of at Sony. I am merely trying to take this at face value, and give credit (good or bad I care not) for what I believe ARE the changes in the market Sony has influenced.
I disagree. To my knowledge, the priority of the PS1 being 3D was known before the announcement of Project Reality. While one could say, hey though, that was simply the public announcement of Project Reality, my belief is that the public announcement was made right after a contract of intent happened between Nintendo and SGI.
My reasoning is as follows. As stated above, Nintendo (and Sega) were not known for pushing technology ahead in any real sense. This is evidenced by the fact they had not previously taken loses, and the fact they had not historically made large collaborations for major system design. The timing of the Project Reality announcement was after PS1 was known about. When it was made definite specs where not known, and the PR images released ended up being far more advanced then what was possible with N64. Possible specs were slowly released over time but they ended up being cut over and over. It would seem that the design did not exist at the time of the announcement. Also as stated, it was uncharacteristic for Nintendo to contract out such a major portion of the system.
To me, all of this adds up to a simple scenario. Nintendo saw what the PS1 was expected to do, and what its priority was. I believe this would not have been Nintendos priority otherwise. Since at the time, 3D graphics acceleration of this kind was new to consumer-level products, Nintendo was forced to contract with a company that specialized in 3D graphics since they did not have the ability to produce a solution themselves. I believe the reason the initial PR renders where so far from what eventually was possible, was simply the fact that they hadnt really started on the system. You have to remember, this was SGIs first contract to make a consumer-level chip since no one was making them at this point. I believe the pictures are evidence that the system didnt really exist at all, and SGI / Nintendo really did not know exactly what would be possible for their engineers since this was the first they had attempted to make something like this.
In this day and age, companies can make an educated guess for target specs and make target renders to match it. At that point, they had never made a consumer card (no one had, just Sony), so they really didnt know what would be possible.
As Ive stated, Im not crediting Sony with inventing 3D and I realize all knew it was the eventual future. I simply believe Sega and Nintendo were going to prioritize 2D for one more generation. You have to understand, those arcade boards were all proprietary beasts costing unbelievable amounts of money. Until Sony, no one expected that sort of power would move into the home until later.
jarrod said:
That's a good point, actually.
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong (so forgive me), but I can hardly think of any game on the N64 that wasn't in 3D. So you could say Nintendo forced the priority of 3D as well. (again, I could be misconstruing what you're saying)