Support NeoGAF

[fse]

kinda off topic, but what if the ps3 controller looked like this

 

[BigBoss]

kinda off topic, but what if the ps3 controller looked like this

Sony would get sued.

 

[M3wThr33]

kinda off topic, but what if the ps3 controller looked like this

I'd say the Dpad sucks donkey balls and that viewing it was a waste of bandwidth.

 

[xsarien]

As far as my Hollywoodization/basterdization comments about Sony...I was refering to their popularization of gaming in general and bringing in the mouth-breathers who are wowed by FMV, explossions & boobies.

It takes a lot of balls to call out the gaming "mouth-breathers" who are "wowed by boobies" when your avatar is a rather adult picture of an actress whose sole claim to fame is being Fred Savage's co-star in a 100-minute commercial for Super Mario Bros. 3.

Furthermore, how can you possibly say with a straight face that gaming's expansion since the Playstation is a bad thing?

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Someone's done too much gak, man.

 

[Oblivion]

Furthermore, how can you possibly say with a straight face that gaming's expansion since the Playstation is a bad thing?

Personally, I just detest all the gritty GTA type games the market has been flooded with.
Not the actual game design, mind you (which I think is excellent), but rather the atmosphere, and the overall feel of the game. But that's just me.

 

[xsarien]

Personally, I just detest all the gritty GTA type games the market has been flooded with.
Not the actual game design, mind you (which I think is excellent), but rather the atmosphere, and the overall feel of the game. But that's just me.

That's not Sony's doing, Grand Theft Auto was originally a PC franchise.

 

[rod]

this thread is classic :lol from solidsnakex defending fort sony, replying every 3-4 posts to gakman losing it :lol

 

[Oblivion]

That's not Sony's doing, Grand Theft Auto was originally a PC franchise.

Eh? Wasn't Sony's influence on gaming the reason some games like GTA(3+) were able to exist?

 

[xsarien]

Eh? Wasn't Sony's influence on gaming the reason some games like GTA(3+) were able to exist?

No, it was Rockstar's influence on gaming. Understand that if Sony hadn't come around, someone else would have. Nintendo was leaving a huge market widely unexplored.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

It takes a lot of balls to call out the gaming "mouth-breathers" who are "wowed by boobies" when your avatar is a rather adult picture of an actress whose sole claim to fame is being Fred Savage's co-star in a 100-minute commercial for Super Mario Bros. 3.

Furthermore, how can you possibly say with a straight face that gaming's expansion since the Playstation is a bad thing?

Is this like your way of trying to get some GAF props by taking potshots at me? Be my guest, but not only has the dust settled on the arguments, you're wrong on alot of accounts.

First off when I made those comments I was saying them in a blind fury that even I admit was over-reaction. Second, there's nothing "adult" about my avatar. Third, her claim to fame NOW is being a fasionable underground folk/prog rock musician amoung other things. Fourth, it's really trendy to call The Wizard a bad movie and/or say it was a tool to brainwash us N-tard's, but contrary to those notions it was a great peice of Americana and a good family movie that was just as much an advertisement for Reno, Universal Studios and the Power Glove (a non-Nintendo product) as it was for Nintendo.

As far as PlayStation goes...that was my whole rant. While Sony has made gaming more popular, I don't believe that's always a good thing! KNOW YOUR ROOTS!

 

[DrGAKMAN]

this thread is classic :lol from solidsnakex defending fort sony, replying every 3-4 posts to gakman losing it :lol

You shoulda seen me back in my HAY-DAY circa pre-Do!phin Project. I've toned down ALOT, but something just happened that just pushed me over the edge today and I kicked it up to Nintendo fanatic (beyond fan, beyond fanboy...FANATIC).

Ask WindyMan, I was an uncontrollable beast of a nerd back then.

 

[jarrod]

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'm inclined to agree. Jag's crude 3D probably meant it was mainly software driven, like Super FX1/2, 3DO or 32X.

the Saturn SVP,

Er, SVP was a chip for the Genesis. It's what ran Virtua Racing. It was a cutdown core of the GPU that SEGA Model 1 board used and afaik was a dedicated polygon rendering chip that released well over a year before PlayStation.

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 IP’s, and the genius of Miyamoto’s 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. Sony’s willingness to use the ‘razor-blade’ business model (take a loss on HW, make up for it with SW and SW licensing), and Ken Kutaragi’s 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’ I’m 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 Sony’s 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 Sony’s ‘vision’.

Holy crap, there's so many fallacies in here, I'm not sure where to begin?

Let's start with the notion that N64 was in any way a response to PlayStation. The SGI/Nintendo deal goes back to 1992, possibly 1991. In fact a recent interview with Tom Kaliske point that Sega of America and SGI were actually in talks as far back as 1990 to possibly use a cutdown SGI workstation as a basis for a new console. Sega of Japan killed the idea though (prefering to stick with Hitachi chips) and SGI went to Nintendo (who had been developing the FX chip with Argonaut). When SGI was pushing the idea of a dedicated rendering GPU for consumer consoles, Sony was still planning on making a Super Famicom CD drive... it's more likely than not that N64 and PSX were conceived in parallel.

Second, the razor/blades model actually dates back to NES, which was a surprisingly capable machine for it's day, sold at bargin pricing. Actually, all major consoles relied on the razor/blades model to some degree, though it wasn't until the 32bit days that platforms starting taking significant (ie: $100+) losses and it just gotten more dramatic each gen since then. Sony didn't make the model "viable" or introduce it though, what they could be credited with is using internal manufacturing to help drive down later costs though.

Third, while Nintendo's never been a technology focused company, the idea they've only responded to what others make is completely without merit. They haven't responded well to the loss heavy model PlayStation/Xbox are pushing the industry, but to say they've always looked at the low end and relied mainly on franchises is revisionist history. Super Famicom and Nintendo 64 were both highly ambitious, cutting edge products and neither's performance is really rooted in the design of other competitive platforms. GameCube is arguably the most efficient console design ever.

You're bascially pushing a stawman here. Without PlayStation, then Saturn being a 2D machine would've resulted in Nintendo creating a 2D machine? Without PlayStation, Nintendo would've released another sprite cruncher, despite their ovbious shift in directions with the Super FX chip? Despite the fact that SGI was pushing the concept of dedicated 3D accelerated hardware back when Kutaragi was still Yamauchi's business partner? You have bascially no proof of any of this...

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 Nintendo’s 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 hadn’t really started on the system. You have to remember, this was SGI’s 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 didn’t 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 didn’t know what would be possible.

You're severly overestimating Sony's influence back in the early 1990s, they weren't a threat to anyone. The current PlayStation design only started after the SFC CD deal fell through in 1991, well after SGI had started approaching game companies. I'd say it's more likely we'd have gotten N64 as is even if PlayStatiuon never existed.

As I’ve stated, I’m 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.

But you have nothing substantial to hold the belief that Nintendo would've "prioritized 2D for one more generation"? To arrive at that you simply use suspect logic with severe misunderstanding of Nintendo's past ideologies. Looking at all segments of gaming (Star Fox, Virtua Racing, Ridge Racer) it's painfully clear 3D was coming, sooner than later. It's true that SEGA miscalculated, and shot down the SGI proposal in favor of an SH2 driven sprite monster, but you have literally no solid evidence to suggest Nintendo would've taken a similar path. Hell, back in early 1992 when they showed off Star Fox, they clairified that this was the future of gaming.

 

[swordsman]

Yup, Playstation or poohstation was saved by one company> Squaresoft (FF7).
Ken Kut.....( Kut means in Dutch= c**t :lol
I don't liked his face.
Count me out PS3 -1

 

[Master Z]

Damn, people be taking shit too seriously. It's only videogames man. I never understood why people have such hatred.

 

[Zaptruder]

Yup, Playstation or poohstation was saved by one company> Squaresoft (FF7).
Ken Kut.....( Kut means in Dutch= c**t :lol
I don't liked his face.
Count me out PS3 -1

Did you own a PS2?

 

[Amir0x]

Did you own a PS2?

No, he once said "I don't own it, I hate that shit"

He never explains why he hates the system so much, so he better get crackin'. His commentary is pretty trollish.

 

[SolidSnakex]

No, he once said "I don't own it, I hate that shit"

He never explains why he hates the system so much, so he better get crackin'. His commentary is pretty trollish.

It's all kind of funny because you'll often see him in threads about Playstation games wondering why they aren't on the Xbox or 360. If there are that many games on a system you want, you should just drop your bias and get one.

 

[EviLore]

Yup, Playstation or poohstation was saved by one company> Squaresoft (FF7).
Ken Kut.....( Kut means in Dutch= c**t :lol
I don't liked his face.
Count me out PS3 -1

I still don't believe it, have to wait for his confirmation.

If so >my support for Team Ninja is gonna 0%.

Screw PS3 and Sony.

I watched my little brother playing PGR3 online using my Gamecard and Wow.
Best GFX ever for this moment.
Sony can't compete with this, with their GTR next

-Maybe almost no royal fee for MS
-Less costs incompare to the PSpooh 3

Mo matter what . MS have to got all of these great titles as exclusive for the xbox360 and nothing else. Yes even MS has to pay Team Ninja a shitfull of money.

Screw the PS3.

Typical Konami... No xbox360 version....?
First MGS 4 and now this ...
If so..you can go to hell Konami.

I don't want to buy a ps3.

If Capcom don't not full support Xbox360 this time, they can go down and it's fine by me.
So the same for Konami, Namco and Sega.

You bunch of whores whose dare to critic the footage of DOA 4..
Did you you know that the footage was not in HD and the game is just 10 to 15 %done (Itagaki has mentioned somewhere in his interview).

The final game will you smash hard in your faces!! Just wait and see.
Itagaki is a cool guy whose dare to give the critics and not like the others ...just run behind Sony as Ass kissers!!

I piss over the PS3 and it's brand.

Any last words?

 

[Pedigree Chum]

:lol

 

[krypt0nian]

Any last words?

OMG fuckowned! :lol

 

[Amir0x]

see i was all trying to be nice and giving him a chance

but hey!

 

[jett]

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.

WTF!? That had to be a joke post. I'm glad this retard is banned.

 

[El_Victor]

Any last words?

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Lots of BANNEDs playing here tonight...

 

[Amir0x]

WTF!? That had to be a joke post. I'm glad this retard is banned.

Forever too...

Edit: Well, swordman anyway

 

[Red Blaster]

Kenny K's words result in tears and bans.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

I'm inclined to agree. Jag's crude 3D probably meant it was mainly software driven, like Super FX1/2, 3DO or 32X.



Er, SVP was a chip for the Genesis. It's what ran Virtua Racing. It was a cutdown core of the GPU that SEGA Model 1 board used and afaik was a dedicated polygon rendering chip that released well over a year before PlayStation.




Holy crap, there's so many fallacies in here, I'm not sure where to begin?

Let's start with the notion that N64 was in any way a response to PlayStation. The SGI/Nintendo deal goes back to 1992, possibly 1991. In fact a recent interview with Tom Kaliske point that Sega of America and SGI were actually in talks as far back as 1990 to possibly use a cutdown SGI workstation as a basis for a new console. Sega of Japan killed the idea though (prefering to stick with Hitachi chips) and SGI went to Nintendo (who had been developing the FX chip with Argonaut). When SGI was pushing the idea of a dedicated rendering GPU for consumer consoles, Sony was still planning on making a Super Famicom CD drive... it's more likely than not that N64 and PSX were conceived in parallel.

Second, the razor/blades model actually dates back to NES, which was a surprisingly capable machine for it's day, sold at bargin pricing. Actually, all major consoles relied on the razor/blades model to some degree, though it wasn't until the 32bit days that platforms starting taking significant (ie: $100+) losses and it just gotten more dramatic each gen since then. Sony didn't make the model "viable" or introduce it though, what they could be credited with is using internal manufacturing to help drive down later costs though.

Third, while Nintendo's never been a technology focused company, the idea they've only responded to what others make is completely without merit. They haven't responded well to the loss heavy model PlayStation/Xbox are pushing the industry, but to say they've always looked at the low end and relied mainly on franchises is revisionist history. Super Famicom and Nintendo 64 were both highly ambitious, cutting edge products and neither's performance is really rooted in the design of other competitive platforms. GameCube is arguably the most efficient console design ever.

You're bascially pushing a stawman here. Without PlayStation, then Saturn being a 2D machine would've resulted in Nintendo creating a 2D machine? Without PlayStation, Nintendo would've released another sprite cruncher, despite their ovbious shift in directions with the Super FX chip? Despite the fact that SGI was pushing the concept of dedicated 3D accelerated hardware back when Kutaragi was still Yamauchi's business partner? You have bascially no proof of any of this...




You're severly overestimating Sony's influence back in the early 1990s, they weren't a threat to anyone. The current PlayStation design only started after the SFC CD deal fell through in 1991, well after SGI had started approaching game companies. I'd say it's more likely we'd have gotten N64 as is even if PlayStatiuon never existed.



But you have nothing substantial to hold the belief that Nintendo would've "prioritized 2D for one more generation"? To arrive at that you simply use suspect logic with severe misunderstanding of Nintendo's past ideologies. Looking at all segments of gaming (Star Fox, Virtua Racing, Ridge Racer) it's painfully clear 3D was coming, sooner than later. It's true that SEGA miscalculated, and shot down the SGI proposal in favor of an SH2 driven sprite monster, but you have literally no solid evidence to suggest Nintendo would've taken a similar path. Hell, back in early 1992 when they showed off Star Fox, they clairified that this was the future of gaming.

ASIA:
Oh God where were you...when I needed yooooooou
I thought I'd die, why, all the reasons still evade me
'Cos you're back
Now I can see you
Now I can feel you
Now that I want to
Now I can touch you
NEXT TO ME

 

[Matlock]

ASIA:
Oh God where were you...when I needed yooooooou
I thought I'd die, why, all the reasons still evade me
'Cos you're back
Now I can see you
Now I can feel you
Now that I want to
Now I can touch you
NEXT TO ME

 

[DrGAKMAN]

I don't get it!