Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

PlayStation 3 Unveiled

Posted by Zonk on Tue May 17, 2005 08:05 AM
from the psp-and-bluetooth-and-boomerangs-oh-my! dept.
The PlayStation 3 was unveiled yesterday afternoon in a press conference at Sony Pictures Studio. The event was full of beautiful demonstrations, specifications, and talk of the games of tomorrow. The machine is certainly impressive, with backwards compatibility, support for up to seven Bluetooth controllers, multiple HD signals, and intimate interactions with the PSP. Coverage, screenshots, and specs available from 1up.com, Gamespot, Joystiq, NYT, Voodoo Extreme, Gamespy, BBC, GamesIndustry.biz, Engadget, Anandtech, Kotaku, Gamasutra, and CNN Money. The only downside I see so far? The controller. Update: 05/18 21:35 GMT by Z : Gamespot has up a comprehensive look at the console based on what is known so far.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by HTL2001 (836298) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:07AM (#12553771)
    guess we wont be taking any servers down on this article...
    • by SilentChris (452960) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:30AM (#12554086) Homepage
      I'll boil it down: here's what you need to know.

      * The hardware absolutely rocks. The tech demos they showed off were incredibly impressive, and it's very clear that Cell (programmed correctly) will be the most powerful platform out there.
      * There's already signs of DRM and locking down the platform. There was a slide on "hardware security built-in" (they probably meant the way the Cell protects data when shuttling it off to another processor, but it's easy to get the double-meaning).
      * As it stands right now, this thing is going to blow the doors off of Xbox 360. This is coming from an Xbox fan (I've got 30 titles lined up in the den). I'm a gamer, but I also love the best hardware. Barring what Nintendo introduces (and they could very well surprise us, despite the "graphics don't matter" marketing they've been doing), this is clearly going to be the most powerful console around.
            • by KirkH (148427) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:22AM (#12554782)
              I very much doubt you will see any games support 1080p at first...and maybe not ever. Why spend the cycles rendering all that extra data that no one is going to see? I suspect that the developers would much rather use those cycles improving graphic quality or throwing more characters onto the screen at once than rendering double the data for no gain.

              Almost no HDTVs support 1080p right now. And if you buy a nice HDTV today, are you going to replace it in five years? 1080p would be wasted on this generation of consoles, IMO.
              • HD, right on time (Score:5, Interesting)

                by sterno (16320) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @10:28AM (#12555752) Homepage
                1080P, so that's 1080 lines right? Right now on my desktop I'm doing 1280x1024 for all the games I play. So this would be just a hair above that, non?

                I've got a 6600 GT, which is able to keep that 1280x1024 filled with data, no problem. So if the card on the PS3 is equivalent to an SLI linked pair of 6800's, it's got more than enough power to pull that off with insane levels of detail.

                It seems to me that the XBox is an evolutionary step, taking the XBox, making it a better performing system, and including the obvious enhancements. The PS3 seems to be trying to set the ground work for the next level. Sony is thinking way beyond being the next generation game platform and media hub here.

                While XBox can play on HD, what formats does it support? It's just a DVD player, non? The PS3 does Blu-ray, and that will allow it to play high definition movies. Of all the features on the PS3, this is the key piece of the pizzle. Now you may be thinking, nobody has high def movies, but Sony knows that too. Why have a format war over the next high def format when Sony can pre-empt that by having millions of PS3's that already do blu-ray? Expect Sony to begin releasing a lot of their films on Blu Ray when PS3 launches.

                This is the first time I've seen Sony really take advantage of all their pieces. I mean Blu Ray has no obvious benefits over HDDVD, but if I've already got a PS3, it has a huge benefit. No matter what people think of the 360, the PS3 will sell millions of units, and that will give Sony it's foot hold. From there, they make money on:

                1) Selling games
                2) Royalties on the Blue Ray format
                3) Selling everybody their favorite movies all over again in high definition
                4) Selling TV's that take advantage of all of these capabilities

                Very very smart, IMHO. Microsoft has a serious problem here because they can only make up their hardware losses on game licensing. Sony has a lot of channels they can use and it actually will create markets for them that do no currently exist. Microsoft will just sell more games but otherwise be doing the same thing they have done.
              • by madgamer (766925) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @01:57PM (#12558435) Homepage
                Disclaimer: I used to work for Sega and now I work for a major third party publisher, so my words may seem biased.

                Will we ever learn?

                Travel back in time to 1999 when the Dreamcast was about to launch and Sony showed a realtime demo of a character from Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, looking great, with no aliasing problems and looking just like the pre-rendered movie. Then they showed a realtime version of one of the prerendered scenes from Final Fantasy VIII. All PS2 games will look like this, they said. This blows away Shenmue and Virtua Fighter 3tb and Soul Calibur on the DC. Why buy a Dreamcast?

                What did we get for PS2 launch? Fantavision.

                Soul Calibur DC looked so much better than Tekken on PS2 (made by the same company, mind you) and DOA looked amazing. The colors were more saturated and the images were fully anti-aliased on the DC, but most of the gaming public purchased the PS2.

                Now they are pulling the wool over your eyes again.

                When I hear comments like "it's not about the specs, it's about the games", I honestly question whether that is true. The DC had so many great games with new ideas (Skies of Arcadia, Samba De Amigo, Soul Calibur, Power Stone, ChuChu Rocket!, NFL2k, Jet Set Radio, Typing of the Dead, Seaman, etc.) and yet it died a horrible and early death.

                6 stunning cars vs. 12 stunning cars? Platoons vs. Armies? Really? Are you comparing real world games or figments of your imagination?

                Truth is, unless it's a first or second party exclusive title, all games will be made with two (or all three) next-gen systems in mind. Developers make multi-platform games, and they will use a development solution that pumps out builds for more than one platform.

                IMO, the choice of what game system you should get (PS3, Xbox 360, Revolution) should be based on the First Party exclusive games you want to play. A good number of major third party titles will be released on multiple platforms anyway.

        • by SilentChris (452960) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:30AM (#12554893) Homepage
          That's an incredibly cynical approach. This generation we've had:

          * Zelda Windwaker, that took the idea of cel shading and perfected it.
          * Halo 2, which perfected playing online with an incredibly strong interface.
          * PSP, which shows you can turn a game console into a strong movieplayer and vice versa.
          * World of Warcraft, that brought MMORPGs to the masses and along the way redefined "art" in a video game.
          * Grant Theft Auto 3, the first truly mass market game.

          All of these have great gameplay AND great graphics. Would WW, Wow, etc. be the same without great graphics? Not really. The core gameplay would likely still be fun, but there's a reason we don't play Space Invaders anymore.

          The developers have proven time and time again that new power is a tool, and they're more than happy to get their creative juices flowing to use it (think Katamari Damarcy). Yes, there's fluff -- there was fluff with the 80s generation of games too (remember ET)? The gaming industry, however, produces a lot of original ideas to combat the fluff, and frankly it's never been stronger.
          • by rxmd (205533) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @10:42AM (#12555946) Homepage
            Grant Theft Auto 3, the first truly mass market game.
            If you think GTA3 was the first "truly mass market game", I guess you're not around that long. I think that title belongs to Tetris on the Gameboy, which is about the only game every single one of my non-Geek friends knows. Different opinions are always welcome, of course.
  • Why 7? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by XgD (578260) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:09AM (#12553813)
    7 bluetooth controllers? Why 7? not 8? even the current Playstation 2 lets you have 8 controllers!

    Seems a step back... 8-way FIFA games are awesome!
    • Re:Why 7? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bosz (621199) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:13AM (#12553861)
      In a bluetooth piconet you can only connect 8 devices. So that means 7 controllers and 1 console.
      • Re:Why 7? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Trejkaz (615352) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:50AM (#12554332) Homepage
        However, nothing really stopped them from having two piconets for 14 total controllers...
        • Re:Why 7? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Hast (24833) <marcushast@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 17 2005, @10:39AM (#12555914)
          Each device can only be Master in one piconet. And last I looked there were no chipsets that handled scatter-nets properly. (Ie having a device be master in one piconet and client in another.)

          IOW if they wanted more than 7 devices they'd need multiple Bluetooth adaptors. And I believe they really don't expect more than 4 players per game. But this allows you to keep other devices (Eye-toy etc) hooked up while you play 4 player games.
    • Re:Why 7? (Score:5, Funny)

      by killmenow (184444) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:13AM (#12553862)
      Why not 6, Blake? Why not 6?
  • Only long hours of gameplay experience will reveal the merits of the new Playstation-3 controller. Don't get all huffy - yet. One thing I'm wondering about is the # of controllres. Why 7? Is it a bluetooth limitation?
  • The top five reasons why Sony might want to rethink the controller design:

    1) Players would use it as a boomerang to exact revenge on their opponents outside the realm of the PS3

    2) A certain religious group might object to the "crescent" shaped design and might get their panties in a knot.

    3) The controller ends up being a tool to massage your pressure points and used less for gaming

    4) Female Players take it further and use it to simulate two spots at once. Oh goody!

    5) It looks like one of those guns in Battle Field Earth [tribute.ca]
  • Rehashed quote? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@nospAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:13AM (#12553857)

    The console also boasts a new graphics chip from Nvidia, which Sony claims can create movie-quality images in real time in games.

    Sure there was something said about the Playstation 2, Toy Story and realtime graphics quality that never turned out to be true......

  • by acomj (20611) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:14AM (#12553870) Homepage
    This will get Blu-Ray players into peoples home like the playstation did with dvds.

    Interesting to compare tatics, as MS is ending xbox games development this year and Sony is continuing for 2 more. Nintendo is also continueing development.

    Also playstation will be backward compatable. This is great, because there will be a huge library of working games for it. Also they get that games are not just about the graphics, so HD will not be requires .

    From NYT
    "
    While every Xbox 360 title must be developed in high definition, Sony officials are playing down that aspect of the new PlayStation. "Blu-ray technology guarantees the highest graphic quality," said Jack Tretton, executive vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment America. "HD is not the be-all and end-all," Mr. Tretton said, noting that the depth of game play could be more important.

    Microsoft executives have decided to end internal development of games for the current Xbox this year, but Sony will continue to create titles for the PlayStation 2.

    "We'd be crazy to abandon them," said Mr. Tretton, speaking of PlayStation 2 owners.
  • Can someone who actually has a clue speculate on what it means to compare the

    PS3: [yahoo.com] PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
    1 VMX vector unit per core
    512KB L2 cache
    7 x SPE @3.2GHz
    7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
    7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy

    to the xbox360: [xbox.com]
    Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
    Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
    VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
    128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
    1 MB L2 cache

    Also, what is XDR RAM? I've never heard of it, but the PS3 has 256MB of it running at 3.2GHz. It also has 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM at 700MHz.

    The xbox360 has 512MB GDDR3 RAM at 700MHz unified, for the ATI video chip and CPU to share. How will these compare? Unified vs 256MB of blazing fast? Is it too late and or costly for Microsoft to switch to XDR?
    • Here is a better comparison, taken from CNN.com:

      Revolution will be "two-to-three times more powerful than GameCube," according to Nintendo, which also acknowledges that the next-generation race isn't solely about new technologies. By contrast, Microsoft's Xbox 360 console is 13-15 times more powerful than the first, according to the publisher. And Sony says it's PlayStation 3 is roughly 35 times more powerful than PlayStation 2.

      What does it all mean? Absolutely nothing. Statements like this show how it's all marketing b.s. that can't be believed. When we see how the technology is used in an actual game, then it will matter. In the meantime, I'm about four-to-five times more excited for this generations console launch then I was last time.
        • by digidave (259925) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:07AM (#12554569)
          "Nintendo never gives what I call "pissing contest" specs, even when asked for them."

          That's because it's been *years* since they've been in the technological lead. They used to tout the SNES' scaling and rotation over the Genesis every chance they could. Even with the N64 they constantly talked about their fog effect even though it was really nothing more than a way to hide the system's horrible performance at drawing scenes at a distance (where you could see the background being drawn in on racing games, for instance).

          Nintendo still makes a great system with some great games, but they just don't compete with Sony or MS technology. They have to win with great games.
    • by linuxbikr (699873) <mpickering&mindspring,com> on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:48AM (#12555153)
      What isn't being explained to the uninitated is that line for the Cell on '7 x SPE @ 3.2Ghz'.

      The Cell isn't a single core: it's 8! The CPU (or PU as it is called) is a POWER5 core. It is connected to 7 APUs/SPEs (Attached Processor Units/Single Processing Elements (whatever you want to call them)). Each SPE is a limited CPU in its own right with its own local caches and memory. The PU acts as a controller, dispatching work to the APUs.

      Each APU is essentially a very fast CPU optimized for moving data streams and calculations. Cell was designed to chew on large amounts of similar data very, very fast. It isn't a general purpose core like the POWER or Intel cores found in Xbox 360 or the original Xbox (or your PC for that matter).

      Caches aren't everything. PCs and XBox depend on caches to maintain performance levels as in a mixed instruction stream it is tough to know what's going on. A cache miss in a general purpose core can (and is) expensive in terms of cycles. Cell (and the original PS/2) get around caching issues by simply not having them (or just enough to feed the processor) and rely heavily on moving data across a very wide and fast memory bus on demand, as needed and repeated as necessary. Dramatically simplifies the architecture and permits much more focused optimization of code. Programmers for PS/2 had to learn to live without caches and learn a new way of development since PC experience doesn't translate over into the PS/2 world and clearly not into the PS/3 world.

      A big part of this contest between XBox 360 and PS/3 is seeing how programmers managed to take advantage of that parallel power. Multiple cores in XBox will be useless if they can't be taken advantage of. Same goes for Cell.

      I think PS/3 has the advantage and will eventually win. I'm surprised at the specs as original discussions on the machine had indicated it would be fitted with FOUR Cell processors, not one. Perhaps the initial round of prototypes are single Celled (forgive the pun) to permit development and gaining familiarity with the hardware. Perhaps inside are empty slots for more chips.

      Don't confuse PS/3 with a PC because it's not. It is designed to be a very fast SIMD media machine focusing on graphics, video and audio. It may suck as a general purpose server and perhaps a PC can hammer it on some benchmarks but if Cell performs half as good as the information on it speculates in the media realm, there isn't a PC (or Xbox) out there that can hope to keep up with it.
  • Killzone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ford Prefect (8777) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:27AM (#12554046) Homepage
    There's a utterly spectacular Killzone video [filerush.com] doing the rounds, along with some rather pretty screenshots [eurogamer.net].

    Except they look a bit too good. Almost, dare I say it, pre-rendered. Has Sony done the ultimate and presented a completely non-PS3, non-game 3D animation as actual gameplay?
  • Xbox 360 v. PS3 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pao|o (92817) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:30AM (#12554089)

    I took the time out to compare and contrast between the Xbox 360 & PS3 and I came to to this conclusion.

    Xbox 360 has a CPU FPS of 45 GFlops*
    PS3 has a CPU FPS of 218 GFlops

    Xbox 360 has a GPU FPS of around 955 GFlops**
    PS3 has a GPU FPS of 1.8TFlops

    Xbox 360 has a combined FPS of 1TFlops
    PS3 has a combined FPS of 2.18TFlops

    Xbox 360 has a DVD-ROM
    PS3 has a BD-ROM

    Xbox 360 is WiFi ready
    PS3 is WiFi built-in

    Xbox 360 has 3 x USB 2.0 ports
    PS3 has 6 x USB 2.0 ports

    Xbox 360 has support for 4 wireless controllers
    PS3 has support for 7 wireless (Bluetooth) controllers

    Xbox 360 uses Memory Units
    PS3 uses MS Standard/Duo/Pro, SD standard/mini & Compact Flash Type I/II

    Xbox 360 has support for select Xbox1 games
    PS3 has support for PS1 & PS2 games

    Xbox 360 has support for 1 720p & 1080i display
    PS3 has support for 2 480p, 720p, 1080i & 1080p displays

    Note:
    * Derived from CPU Game Math Performance of 9 billion dot product operations per second
    ** Derived from subtracting published Overall System Floating-Point Performance of 1TFlops with derived from CPU Game Math Performance of 9 billion dot product operations per second

    Source:

    Wikipedia's PS3 Tech Specs
    Official Xbox 360 Fact Sheet
    Formula for Dot Product Operations Per Second to GFlops

    • by Queer Boy (451309) * <dragon DOT 76 AT mac DOT com> on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:50AM (#12554331)
      All that and Gameboys still dominate.
    • Re:Xbox 360 v. PS3 (Score:4, Informative)

      by KirkH (148427) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:04AM (#12554523)
      The Xbox 360 CPU is actually rated at 115-130 GFLOPS depending on your source. A Sony slide at the PS3 unveiling showed it (the 360 CPU) at 115 GFLOPS.

      Don't forget the hard drive: included on the 360, an expansion item for the PS3. You didn't overlook it on purpose, did you? :)
      • by javaxman (705658) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @12:02PM (#12556941) Journal
        How do we know that Sony is not lying like they did with the PS2?

        While we know there is marketing hype involved, at least one demo was shown to be real-time. From the Gamespot article :

        To show off the PlayStation 3's graphical brawn, Sony showed several game demos, including an Unreal 3 engine show-off of what appeared to be Unreal Tournament 2007. In what must come as a relief to developers, Epic Games' Tim Sweeney was on hand to vouch for the PS3, saying it was "easy to program for" and that Epic had received its first PS3 hardware two months ago. He proved the tech demo was real-time by showing it again and by manipulating the camera and zooming in.

        Why is it hard to believe that Sony, working on this project for the past 3 years or more, might just be able to best Microsoft's 18-month project? It should not be. While the specs might be a tad inflated, it's probably safe to say that the PS3 is a more graphically and computationally capable machine than the Xbox 360. What that means for market share remains to be seen.

        Both MS and Sony are going to be pulling out all the stops. Nintendo is likely to step up to the plate as well. You know what? Competition is good.

  • Bluetooth? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lussarn (105276) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:31AM (#12554103)
    I have a logitech dinovo blouetooth keyboard/mouse combo and I do not use that mouse for gaming. It's way to laggy, I think bluetooth has maximum update of 80hz or something. Have they worked around that?
    • by bosz (621199) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:11AM (#12553837)
      I think it is shaped that way, so that if you get really mad because you lost for the 100th time, you can throw the controller away and it will come back to you as a boomerang. You don't have to get up anymore to get te controller.
    • At this point I am just excited to be able to buy bluetooth controlers. I assume that they will be normal bluetooth and compatible with PCs. Maybe this will spur the development of bluetooth devices the way the original iMac made USB ubiquitous.
    • Playstation Banana (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Deathlizard (115856) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:49AM (#12554304) Homepage Journal
      I don't know about boomerang... looks more like a banana to me.

      It's pretty sad when I can look at an Xbox 360 Controller and say it looks better than this one.

      I won't finally judge it until I actually hold one, but I dont understand why Sony would screw up a good controller design for what looks more like an asethethic change rather than a functional one, unless they had to make it bigger to hold the wireless circuity.
    • It's just you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:13AM (#12553863)
      Actually what you can see is Sony and MS really putting a design effort into their products (whether they succeeded or not is of course an other question and would make great flamewar material.)

      But in the vain light of iPod popularity? No, not really when you look at them.

      The only thing where the iPod might actually have played a role is in reminding tech companies that design does indeed matter, which btw. is a good thing.
      • Re:It's just you (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Golias (176380) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:32AM (#12554117)
        While there's a lot to like about both consoles, I don't like the design of either of them.

        This stand-it-up-on-the-side crap might look cool to some people, but it really doesn't fit in to the scheme of most media rooms very well.

        And both of them have goofy contours with absolutely no function dictating the form, and not even much appeal from an aesthetic sense.

        It's like Sony wanted their console to remind people of a Toyota Prius... And Microsoft has a consultant tell them that curved panels are "hip" right now.

        The PS3 "boomerang" controller looks like an interesting industrial design choice, though. As a typical adult American, it will be fun to try playing Sony games with a controller that actually fits my hands, for a change. (Although I'm sure there will be howls of anguish from old-school Playstation bigots who think anything bigger than a suppository tablet is way too big for a game controller.)
    • by valkyriekl (788246) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:16AM (#12553895)
      might look crappy...but it might work out fine...

      I like the old PSX controllers, except for one point: the grips are too small for my hands; after a couple hours of intense gameplay, my hands ache from trying to squeeze something so small. The XBox controllers, on the other hand, fit my hands quite nicely (although I don't really like where the buttons are), and everyone seemed to pick on the controllers back when the XBox was released.
    • Re:Controller (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trurl's Machine (651488) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:18AM (#12553923) Journal
      I hope they either provide a way to connect old PS2 controllers (bluetooth device with controller ports?) or release a 'classic' controller identical to PS2 model as option.

      Since it is supposed to be - quoting TFA - "backward compatible all the way to the original PlayStation" - it will be obviously possible. Backwards compatibility was the key factor for me to chose PS2 instead of XBox - I just would miss Syphon Filter and my kids would miss Crash Bandicoot games too much to scrap all our old collection of our favorite games. PS2 even reads PSX memory cards, so we could move even our saved game profiles. I hope this will be possible with PS3 too. If it will - and it looks like it will - then Microsoft has nothing to offer me. Again.
    • Re:Controller (Score:4, Interesting)

      by digidave (259925) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:43AM (#12554239)
      Everybody said the same thing when they first got a look at the PSX controllers, too. It was crazy... the traditional D-pad was replaced by four buttons! How absurd!

      Sony kept the same controller around for two console generations so you know they're not the type of company to come out with a new design just because there is a new console. They probably did hundreds of hours of user testing.
      • Re:Controller (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GeckoX (259575) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:06AM (#12554546)
        And if you look at the new one, it's really not very different at all from the existing ones.

        The only thing that really seems to have changed are the 'arms' or whatever.

        I don't think judgement can be passed on the controller until it's been tried in person.
    • I heard each controller comes with a utility belt, a 300-lb. zipline and gas pellets.
    • by Faeton (522316) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @08:22AM (#12553973) Homepage Journal
      I'll take your $20. Too bad they've already announced that the XBox 360 will be out this holiday season, and the PS3 will be out 6 months later. What you're predicting is that the XBox 360 will be MORE than 1 year late.

      I highly doubt that Microsoft would risk such a leathal blow as to slip the all-important holiday season. They'll need all the help they can get now that the PS3 has announced they're full backwards compatible, with some nifty features that the Xbox 360 doesn't have (Bluetooth, 1080i).

    • Yes, it's called Bluetooth. 79 frequencies available cycled 1600 times a second (23 frequencies in the Japanese spectrum). Once a piconet links up (which is what a given console and set of controllers will be) they cycle frequencies in sync. Unless you plan on having more than several dozen systems within about 10 meters there won't be a problem. Bluetooth was designed to be ubiquitous.
    • Re:Sony SDK ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Deathlizard (115856) on Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:12AM (#12554635) Homepage Journal
      Back in the Xbox 360 article I said that Nvidia is probably putting the most powerful silicon they can in the PS3, and at 1.8 TFlops They didn't disappoint, and either did sony with the Cell. This thing is almost 2x+ the Xbox 360 in just about every stat but RAM.

      The SDK however, has got me a little concerned. Sony is notorious for having bad SDK's for their hardware, specifically the PS2 at launch. Although it's unclear what the Xbox or PS3 SDK is like, my guess is that Xbox 360 dev kit is going to be easier than the Sony one, simply because it's what Microsoft does; make software and programming tools.

      Nvidia in the PS3 is definitely going to make it a lot easier for devs since it's probably going to be documented by Nvidia, and will most likely use hardware calls that are similar to their PC counterparts. The only question left is how easy is it to program the Cell, and how will Sony's SDK stack up to the MS one.

      Overall if these specs are attainable, Sony's got something here, and it's Developer base will see to it that it trounces the Xbox 360 with it's sheer power, it just might take a year for it to show it's full potential. Nintendo, on the other hand, better show off something that truly lives up to it's "revolution" name.