Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Graphics Software XBox (Games)

Sony Endorsing Open Graphics Format For PS3 191

Posted by simoniker from the super-collada dept.
News for nerds writes "At the tech talk as part of the forthcoming SIGGRAPH 2004 conference on August 11th, an open graphics file format for the interactive 3D [videogame] industry called COLLADA will be unveiled by Sony Computer Entertainment. COLLADA is supported by major 3D toolchain companies including Alias, Criterion, Discreet, Emdigo, Novodex, Softimage and Vicarious Visions. If you combine this with the recent news that Sony has joined Khronos Group to support OpenGL/ES, OpenMAX, OpenVG and OpenML, it seems evident that Sony is quietly fighting back against the loudly trumpeted Microsoft XNA (/. coverage) with its plan of an open game development platform."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Endorsing Open Graphics Format For PS3 More

Sony Endorsing Open Graphics Format For PS3

Comments Filter:

  • My head hurts (Score:5, Funny)

    by pHatidic ( 163975 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:00PM (#9847419)
    I don't get it, which link am I supposed to click on to figure out what this story is about? All I see is "blah blah blah" and I have no idea what this is even about.

  • Seems logical (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Crowhead ( 577505 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:01PM (#9847431)
    Sony has a vested interest in making it easier and cheaper for companies to develop games.</captain obvious>

    • Re:Seems logical (Score:4, Insightful)

      by endx7 ( 706884 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:24PM (#9847654) Homepage Journal
      That way the market can be flooded with low quality games that suck, because anyone can do it.

      Or, it becomes cheaper, but you still have to go through Sony to license your game to publish it on the PS3. That would cut out poor games that could hurt the PS3's image (and because of open standards, like OpenGL (well, it has a published API at least), even if you don't get it on PS3, you can still release it on other platforms, like the PC).

      • Re:Seems logical (Score:4, Insightful)

        by lambent ( 234167 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:30PM (#9847713)
        The original days of video games were full of poor quality games that everyone had the ability to make. Many people now regard this as the great halcyon days of gaming, and look back with fondness and regret.

        Personally, i'd rather pay 5$ a piece for 10 mediocre games, then pay 50$ for the latest must-have-super-franchise-sequel-seen-everything-b efore-but-this-time -it's-new-we-promise deal.

        Openness and well documented specs will benefit everyone. Just because there will be more lower quality games (not disputing this), doesn't mean that you won't still get to blow your wad on Super Mario 8 and Sonic 12 Adventure Battle or whatever it is.

        • Re:Seems logical (Score:3, Interesting)

          by endx7 ( 706884 )
          As I understand it, the video game industry once lost consumer confidence because of low quality games. If the PS3 market is flooded with a lot of games, which includes a lot of low quality ones, then the PS3 could get hurt badly.

          I kinda don't want to see the PS3 fail, since I've always liked the playstation a little better than the rest. I wouldn't want it to fall to something like that.
          • True.

            If Sony is hurt in this way, it will stifle their ability to innovate and push new hardware and software concepts.

            Software titles aside, I really like the parallelism and graphics system of the PS2. I can't wait to get my hands on the PS3.

          • Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Insightful)

            by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:52PM (#9847928) Journal
            PSX and PS2 already have plenty of low-quality games. That was Sony's battle-plan. While Nintendo has had a history of not rubber-stamping things, sending games back to the developers for polishing, Sony focused on "fill the shelves". It worked for them.

            Ie; quantity vs quality. AFAIK, it's much harder to get your game approved for market for Gamecube or Xbox than it is for Sony. Go down to the used game shop and just look at the stacks and stacks of pure crap in the PS2 and PSX bins. "Hooters Racing" comes to mind. Yeah, lets take this horse-turd joke of a racing game, stick in a couple still publicity photo's of Hooters girls, and make some bucks.

            I'm not saying every PS2 game is shit, some are great. I'm just saying that the "bury 'em in titles" philosophy has worked well for them in the past.

            When you walk into Best Buy and the PS2 section is twice the size of the Xbox and GCN sections, that makes a big impact on your average shopper.

            It's also how gameboy buried all of it's competition over the years.
            • I'm still looking for games in the Sega Genesis section. Crap.
        • Premise=faulty. Just because Sony is endorsing open graphics formats doesn't mean that the bar will be set any lower for what games will be sold for their console. It's partially a public relations ploy, basically saying "Microsoft is evil for forcing XNA while we will give you your choice of open toolsets [which you will still have to use to make PS3-compatible games under our licensing agreement]"; and, of course, the other part is addressing developer concerns about the relative difficult of coding for
      • That way the market can be flooded with low quality games that suck, because anyone can do it.
        This has always been sony's strenght, and is one of the reasons that Sony beat out Sega and Nintendo during the 32bit console wars (the other reasons being mainly Nintendo and Sega both shooting themselves in their respective feet). If you have the money to make a game an dpay sony's licensing fee, then you can make a PS2 game. Sure this leads to a lot of crappy games, but it also is what leads to really Unique
        • "Sure this leads to a lot of crappy games, but it also is what leads to really Unique and really fun games. Games that Nintendo especially just wouldn't let get made."

          Can you name some examples ? As over the years I found Nintendo way more focused on getting 'different' games out there.

    • Re:Seems logical (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrockway ( 229604 ) *
      No, the only thing that can compete against M$ is open-ness. If M$ weren't around, Sony would stick us with their proprietary crap again.

      So hey, M$ is good for one thing. Getting their competitors to open things up. This is actually good (although sony doesn't seem the to be a likely source of openness... i'll wait and see on this one).

  • Sony Who? (Score:3, Informative)

    by inkdesign ( 7389 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:02PM (#9847432)
    Sony... Open Format... Did the wires get crossed here or what?

    • Re:Sony Who? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jaaron ( 551839 )
      This is Sony Computer Entertainment not Sony Pictures or Sony Electronics. SCE, which is the Sony division responsible for the Playstation, has quite a different outlook on things than much of the rest of the company. For example, its SCE which provided the Linux on Playstation kit. Also, when SCE was first working on the Playstation, they decided to develop and manufacture their own chips and electronics rather than go threw SEL. Essentially, they didn't want to deal with the rest of Sony. And it has

  • Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:02PM (#9847433) Homepage Journal

    Sony, known for pushing proprietary interfaces, is backing open standards. Pure pragmatism at its finest - Microsoft is pushing a closed standard, Sony wants to fight Microsoft, and the only effective way to do that is to be the opposite of Microsoft. Hence, make it as easy as possible to port games to the PS3. Of course, Microsoft is making it as easy as possible to port Windows games to Xbox, but that's just more lock-in as we have all come to know and hate it.

    This is great news for everyone, because a giant like sony supporting open standards can only be good for us, so long as they don't pull a microsoft-like embrace and extend. So far though, Sony has been pretty good about that, choosing instead to create their own completely separate competiting formats when they want to try to kill a technology, which is infinitely preferable in my mind.

    • Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:26PM (#9847679) Journal
      This has little to do with wanting to "fight microsoft". The PSX brand already dominates, and MSFT really isn't a threat.

      This is just Sony listening to developers, who didn't care for the PS2 dev kits and all the wacky proprietary calls.

      The focus inside the industry really isn't on ports, it never has been. Ports, by rule of thumb, sell very poorly. Are you going to buy Doom 3 for Xbox and PC? Given the choice of one or the other, which would you choose? So would I.

      From the developers perspective, it's good to get your game to the widest possible audience. That means, if practical, PS2, PC, XBOX, and GCN.

      But, Sony (and MSFT or Nintendo for that matter) thrive on *excusive* titles. Believe me, Halo sold more Xboxes than probably every other Xbox title combined. Ditto MGS or GTA3 for PS2. Nintendo's stable of exclusive titles is well known.

      Anyhow, Sony picking library A over B has shit all to do with competing with Microsoft, embracing RMS's values, or any of that. It was just a decision they made based on feedback from their first tier developers.

      • The PSX brand already dominates, and MSFT really isn't a threat.

        I wish I could agree with you but I can't. Microsoft is the 800 lb gorilla. Sony is about 750 lb. Right now they have dominance because they have a better name and more developers, but yor average gamer doesn't care that Microsoft is the ultimate computer industry embodiment of evil, they just care where the games are. As Microsoft continues to flush money down the game console hole, they will build up more and more of a reputation.

        The

      • Just to play devil's advocate:

        I'm a Mac owner, with a dual g4 450. :| My options for doom3 consist of the following:

        1. Proc upgrade, video card upgrade. The proc up to dual 1.24ghz is ~600$. Gamer-friendly mac video cards are goddamned joke- that's another 300$ for something that would cost 125$ tops on the pc. My current video card meets Minimum Requirements for video, though. So, 600$ + Game. 660$ (Mac games are almost never the same price as the PC equivalent.). Oh, and add waiting for the mac

        • 2. Buy a PC. If I'm going to do that, then I'd be springing for a Good video card. Recent figures from my coworker puts a useable box at about 900$. Plus the game. 950$.

          3. Xbox + Doom3 for Xbox = 200$.

          Well you certainly won't need a $900 PC to play the game at 640x480, which is what the XBox will give you.
          • I can get 640x480 with my existing video card, according to the benchmarks and reviews. What I have is still expensive on the mac and considered "dated" in the PC world.

            A bottom-of-the-line PC that will barely handle Doom3 (again, at 640x480) was specced by my coworker at ~480$, which is still 280$ more than X-box + Doom.
      • "The focus inside the industry really isn't on ports, it never has been. Ports, by rule of thumb, sell very poorly. Are you going to buy Doom 3 for Xbox and PC? Given the choice of one or the other, which would you choose? So would I."

        Yea, me too. After not having to deal with Windows or any random other problems when I played SW: KOTOR on there, I'm really looking forward to not having to buy any fancy new video cards for playing Doom 3. Plus I get to enjoy co-op play with my friend via XBL, so I'm gett

    • Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing (Score:5, Funny)

      by cmdr_beeftaco ( 562067 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:29PM (#9847705)
      Sony has obviously ripped a page out of The Art of War(tm). Your enemy's enemy is your friend's friend. Likewise your friend's enemy is your enemy's friend. Furthermore the enemy of your enemy is the friend of your friend. Please remember though your enemy is not your friend.
      • Your enemy's enemy is your friend's friend. Likewise your friend's enemy is your enemy's friend. Furthermore the enemy of your enemy is the friend of your friend. Please remember though your enemy is not your friend.

        Care to expand that to foes, fans and freaks, Mr. Sun Tzu?

        And don't get me started on friends of fans, foes of freaks, Friends And Family, Garfield And Friends, and Fee Fi Foe Fum.

    • While I agree that this is a good thing. It is a really strange ad for a job opening.

      Consider what they are asking for, how many people in the whole gaming industry possess those skills? Consider Sony's dominance in the console gaming industry and their considerable presence in the computer gaming industry...

      They don't already know who that person is? How do you develop that skill set and not be known industry wide? Even if you are that clueless, look at the top games released in the last few years, revie

    • What the hell are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:51PM (#9848405)
      Sony, known for pushing proprietary interfaces, is backing open standards.

      Sony the freaking GAME MAKER is not all proprietary. Take a look at what they did provide on the PS2:

      Linux port
      Standard DVD player (if they had done what the gamecube did piracy would have been harder)
      Bog-standard USB ports
      Standard Firewire port.

      Seems like they were doing pretty good to me! Yeah I would have liked to see them use CF cards for game saves (or even thier own memory sticks - how many memory formats does the world need)? But they did better than any other console maker at supporting standards already, this is just another step in that direction. I don't think it's fair to label Sony the company as a whole with the brush of proprietary formats.

      And as a sidenote all the sony vidcams use standard firewire and standard tapes. Even the laest Sony camera uses CF cards (and memory sticks)! Sony is waking up.
      • Actually, PS2 memory cards are memory sticks, but they're in a different package, a necessity brought about by the use of a totally different format in the memory cards for the PS1.
        • If they are really just memory sticks inside, I wonder hy no-one has ever come out with an adaptor that lets you use normal memory sticks? Given the price of PS2 memoy it would be a welcome thing, that and being able to back-up games to a PC (which I have a very small PS2 USB drive that copies from the memory cards and also mounts as a USB drive on a PC or mac).

          Is that whole "MagicGate" thing part of memory sticks as well? I had thought that was PS2 memory only.
          • There are memory sticks with and without magicgate, or at least there used to be. Probably all the new ones are magicgate only. The "magic" of the gate is that it has DRM, whee. I presume that the memory cards on the PS2 have a different ID or something so an adaptor wouldn't do the job, although that might not be the case.
    • Sony, known for pushing proprietary interfaces, is backing open standards.

      So, let me get this straight. When they're in charge of the market, in this case the console market, Sony plays with open standards. But when they're in a market that they have little share over, say mp3 players and online music distribution, they go with about as closed a standard as one can muster.

      Sounds like a couple of people accidently switched briefcases in the lobby of Sony to me.

      • I think (but don't really know) that the logic went like this: They're gods of the console market and want to stay that way, in order to do this they must attract developers. The PS2 was hard to develop for even though [slashdot.org] they used a linux development system with gcc, because it's hard to really utilize the system and keep the vector units (where the majority of the PS2's power is) busy at all times. This was the same reason that the Saturn got its ass kicked, it was too hard to write games for. You could do

  • Finally... (Score:4, Funny)

    by dan_sdot ( 721837 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:02PM (#9847439)
    ...I will get to start my development of "Al Michaels: 2005". I will completely obliterate my competition [easports.com]!
    Time to put in my letter of resignation for the current job...

  • Collada? (Score:5, Funny)

    by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:03PM (#9847442)
    Does it come with a little paper umbrella?

  • Good for them... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fux the Penguin ( 724045 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:03PM (#9847451) Journal
    If Sony (or any other company) releases free development environments then they should be applauded because at least it gives anyone the opportunity of turning a good idea into a tangible game or piece of software.

    The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.

    For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.

    One advantage that consoles have over a PC is that developers for a console platform must constantly "push the envelope" to get the console to do more and more as time goes on - this, in turn, creates better, more efficient coding. On the PC, the expectation is that users simply upgrade hardware to meet the requirements of a new game, no games developers get long enough with a particular, say, graphics chipset to fully understand what they can get it to do and, as a result, we, the end users, end up with sloppily coded games that need constant upgrades to get them to work properly.

    My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times. What would really put games development back into the hands of single programmers or small groups of game designers, is having access to the core engines as well so that the most important aspect of game design, the initial good idea for a game design, can become tangible much easier.

    Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money (which is why money and good games are mutually exclusive in my view) but it would be good to see the games buyers become a lot more discerning when it comes to purchasing games.

    Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.

    • Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by clandestine_nova ( 620998 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:10PM (#9847527)
      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.
      I don't know about you, but in my programming experience, I tend to want to craft things myself - for the experience of it, plus the fact that I understand my coding more than anyone else's, obviously.

      As to why they are doing it, I haven't got a damn clue. Perhaps something to do with licenses, since there currently isn't any XBox/PS2/GC open source engine, is there?
      • So, I take it you code in Assembly then? Or do you use things like glibc, other C libraries, GTK/Cocoa/Win32 API, high-level languages, etc?

        Coding your own graphics engine in your college "vector calculus for programmers" class is one thing; coding one for a commercial video game is quite another. Building off of others' work is the only way we (as an industry, or indeed as a species) get anything useful done!

        "If I have seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac N

    • Re:Good for them... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:13PM (#9847559)
      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.

      Because it is easier to spend $umpty million than it is to green light an original idea.

      Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times.

      Which is then replaced with $umpty million for art work, levels, monster designs, etc. (note no story, characters or anything that might require a WRITER).

      Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.

      Agreed.
    • Of this [slashdot.org].

    • Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:26PM (#9847676) Journal
      My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games.

      It's not gonna happen. (Not that you seem to believe it yourself)

      The first movies were made by the Lumiere brothers, who invented the projector.

      The first photograph was unincidentally taken by Niepce who unsurprizingly was the inventor of the first camera.

      It follows naturally that the first computer games were written by computer hobbyists and programmers.

      I believe however, that the day of programmers as the major creative force in computer games is over. Like the cinematograph and the camera, the computer has been accepted as an artists' tool and computer games as a medium. It's part of the entertainment industry now. And with that comes the high-budget, polished productions that cost money and bars the entry of amateurs.

      Sure, now and then a small independent film made on grainy 16mm film unexpectedly breaks through and receives a cult following, and I expect something similar for amateur computer games in the future.

      But the days when a guy sitting in his basement could produce a major computer game hit is simply over.

      • Re:Good for them... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Com2Kid ( 142006 )
        • My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games.


        • It's not gonna happen. (Not that you seem to believe it yourself)

          The first movies were made by the Lumiere brothers, who invented the projector.

          The first photograph was unincidentally taken by Niepce who unsurprizingly was the inventor of the first camera.

          It follows naturally that the first computer games were written by computer
      • Let's don't forget Counter-Strike here?
        It got its popularity while being the game with 3-4 programmers/artists.
        Never say never ;-)

    • Re:Good for them... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:33PM (#9847745)
      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.

      Because programmers enjoy the challenge of pushing metal to the limit. And for those people who have the skills and experience to do such work, companies are willing to pay extremely good money. Whenever a team finishes a project, everyone already knows at least ten things they could do better or would like to add to improve the title.
      Plus rewriting an engine from scratch helps keep a clean, while getting rid of any crufty glue code that may have crept in during the previous project. Not forgetting that the hardware is constantly changing. Look at the evolution of the OpenGL extensions: from matrix blending to vertex programs and from register combiners to fragment programs.

      Most of the major titles reuse their development tools (racing titles, sports) and just add new features. Audio, image and compression libraries only need to be written once.

      My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times.

      "Bedroom programmers" haven't gone away, they're writing open source games. If you have a Linux system, have a look at all the open-source games available (either under kde-toys or at freshmeat.org).

    • Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aardwolf204 ( 630780 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:50PM (#9847912)
      If Sony (or any other company) releases free development environments then they should be applauded because at least it gives anyone the opportunity of turning a good idea into a tangible game or piece of software.

      The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.

      Thats what Sony does. While Nintendo has fewer games their quality meets Nintendo's standards. Sony will let just about anyone create a game for the PSX, and thats what made it wildly popular. Independent labels (ok, not bedroom programmers) were able to get into a market with the big guys and thats where we saw innovation. Then again, among the hundreds of games for the PSX we're going to have a ton of crap. You've got to take the good with the bad.

      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.

      Most PC games license engines. A few years ago there were really only a copule of engines being used for FPS style games at least. I cant count how many games I've played on the Quake3 engine.

      Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result

      id gives the source away to its older games. If it didnt, the amazing port of Quake to Pocket PC would not be possible. I cant wait for the source to quake 3 to be released!

      My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games.

      "Bedroom programmers" are still able to make good games, but not by themselves anymore, and they're not really games, they're called mods, or TC's and they're one of the things that will get your foot in the door in the gaming industry. Take a look at the wildly popular Half-Life mod Counter-Strike. I know tons of people who bought HL just for this mod, which started as a hobby project by a VT student (someone correct me if it was another university).

      Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money

      If you want to make games, then by all means do so. Nobody is expecting you to code away an awesome engine, draw fantastic graphics and models, and design interesting levels all by yourself. Get the doom3 SDK when it comes out and spend a week RTFMing and experimenting. Get on a project or start your own, maybe it will get popular, maybe it will be mentioned on slashdot, maybe you'll get picked up by a game company, I dont know, but I do know that complaining on slashdot about how its not like the old days isnt going to get you very far.

      but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.

      Thats why theres suprnova and usenet. Its called try before you buy. or just buy the game and if it sucks take it back and say you didnt agree to the EULA. I played Call of Duty, which was awesome. Finished it and wanted more WWII action, so i bought metal of honor, big waste of money, took it back, said i didnt agree, no questions.

      Now dont get me wrong, im not encouraging piracy, just dont waste your hard earned cash on crap, its common sense. support the developers and become one if you so wish. I for one will be buying doom3 the day it comes out. I'm not going to bother with a demo, I'm not going to pirate it, I'm going to *proudly* display my box on top of my monitor. I dont need to try before I buy, its id, its going to rock.

    • Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Archibald Buttle ( 536586 ) <steve_sims7@yaho[ ]o.uk ['o.c' in gap]> on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:03PM (#9848042)
      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.

      Two URLs for you:
      http://www.renderware.com/
      http://www.idsof tware.com/business/technology/

      Many games are based on the Renderware engine from Criterion. They were just bought by EA this week.

      Many other games are based on the Doom and Quake engines from id.

      There are other gaming engines besides those offered by Criterion and id - physics engines, particle engines, rendering engines...

      Many game developers don't feel the need to write their own wizzy engine. Grand Theft Auto 3 and its sequels are all based on Renderware, for example. In fact there are several hundred games in development right now that use Renderware.
    • For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.

      Well, simply b

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:04PM (#9847459)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Yeah, that's pretty much it. It's a file format aimed at intermediate resources in the content development pipeline. You make your level in 3dsmax or maya or wings3d or whatever, export it to MyLevel.COLLADA, then use a bunch of processing tools on that, and eventually compile it into a binary format that you can ship on a CD and load very quickly at runtime; the game itself never sees the intermediate file format. The inline tools will include: lightmap generation (including fancy new kinds of lightmaps li

  • Speedier game releases, lower development costs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scowling ( 215030 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:04PM (#9847470) Homepage
    One of the major issues (or so I've read) about developing games for the PS1 and PS@ has been that they're difficult and expensive to develop for. Hopefully this will decrease development times with some form of cooperative graphics system, and thereby reduce costs and speed production.

    The additional upside to this is that decreased development costs is good for the bottom line, which would decrease the likelihood that any given game publisher will go out of business, seeing as how they seem to die off with alarming regularity. And the upshot of this is that longer-lived publishers tend to increase the quality of their products over time thanks to experience.

    Or maybe they'll just blow the money on ale and whores.
    • My school has an upper year course for designing PS2 games, and currently it is very hard to get into. They have to keep a small number of people in the class due to the large costs involved in purchasing an SDK and console. Also, from what I have heard, the programming for PS2 is difficult because it uses assembly with multiple processors/gpu's. Hopefully this new open source side will lead to easier access to the development side, increasing programers and allow for more people to get in the industry.
      • There's a big difference between open APIs and open source.

        OpenGL is an open API, meaning that the API spec is published openly and anyone can implement code that follows that spec, whether it's an application or a driver. The drivers though that follow this API don't have to be open source, and usually aren't. The same applies to applications that use it.

        I believe the same applies to the other APIs that are being talked about here.

        Sony will, I am sure, have their own proprietary implementations of the
      • > Also, from what I have heard, the programming for PS2 is difficult because it uses assembly with multiple processors/gpu's.

        Yeah, technically 7.

        The VU0 has only 4K of RAM. (usually used for Physics calcs)
        The VU1 has 16K of RAM. (Usually used for T&L)

        It only has 1 GPU.

        You need a good mesh stripper to get maximum performance out of the beast.

        --
        Original, Fun Palm games by the Lead Designer of Majesty!
        http://www.arcanejourneys.com/
    • The PS1 wasn't difficult to develop for.

      The Sega Saturn, now that was a beast. Processors everywhere and no inherent capabilities for sound and movie compression.
    • Hopefully this will decrease development times with some form of cooperative graphics system, and thereby reduce costs and speed production.

      Unfortunately, the increase in resource requirements for a next-gen title (Xbox2, PS3) is huge. This may be Sony's attempts to get a handle on that, but they're slowing the trend down-- not reversing it. Next-gen titles will require larger teams (and larger budgets) than the current generation.

      Which, of course, will make publishers even more risk-averse than they a

  • More open standards on the way.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kenneth Stephen ( 1950 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:07PM (#9847497) Journal

    Just wanted to point out that the w3C recently published their intention to have a finger in this pie. With this [w3.org], they hope to be able to support graphic formats that are representable in XML - notably SVG.

    • Re:More open standards on the way.... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      <bitmap version="3.334">
      <pixel x="0" y="0">
      <r>45</r>
      <g>23</g>
      <b>200</b>
      </pixel>
      <pixel x="1" y="0">
      <r>43</r>
      <g>200</g>
      <b>128</b>
      </pixel>
      ...
      <pixel x="1024" y="1024">
      <r>256</r>
      <g>0</g>
      <b>96</b>
      </pixel>
      </bitmap>

      Seriously, images...xml, wtf?

      • I believe if you at least glance at the referred article (which is all I did) you'll see that it references an alternate serialization scheme. Maybe something like

        <image width="1280" height="1024>[binary image info]</image>

        Where the entire frame is rendered in a single binary element. Just guessing though.

  • Ok (Score:5, Funny)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:08PM (#9847507)
    In other news, the average cost of developing a console video game today reached $50 million, not counting the all new renderfarm. Developers complained that 18 months was still too long to spend setting up their "next generation workflow paradigms." A completely new graphics engine was then moved into development, prompting a long, drooling yawn from the gaming press. Management refused to comment and moved on to the salad course.

    Redemption XII: Soaked in Money: The Curse: $Random Noun: The Sequel was delayed indefinitely to make use of the new graphics format. Management was unavailable for comment as they were busy opening another package of croutons.

  • Been done before (1995!) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bram Stolk ( 24781 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:09PM (#9847520) Homepage
    It has al been done before... in 1995!

    It was called
    keystone [google.com] back then.

    • I remember reading the announcement back then. It's a shame it never seemed to take off (OK, Alias and Wavefront did merge, but that was due more to Microsoft buying out Softimage, who have since been sold to Avid).
      Back then, SGI Indy workstations still didn't support OpenGL with hardware texture mapping, and console systems didn't have the memory to support high detail/resolution models. It didn't help that SGI workstations where so expensive, which allowed Micrsoft to muscle Windows NT in with the claim t
  • Will it be a truly "open" format, or just an alternative - open only to members of their club?
  • It takes the presence of a 800lb gorilla to get big players like Sony to do open standards. This is more of a reaction than a strategic decision.

  • nes (Score:4, Funny)

    by CzarMike ( 764771 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:21PM (#9847619)
    meanwhile, nintendo has recently discovered full-size cds
  • Sony still make kit that requires special sony only connections/plugs/adaptors. They still have their one memory cards format and sony only works well with other sony products. They still use plenty of DRM - I still don't like sony...

  • Pity Us Poor Mac Users... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DLWormwood ( 154934 ) <[moc.em] [ta] [doowmrow]> on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:37PM (#9847777) Homepage
    Here were are now... On the one hand, Sony's backing the various "Open??" media standards that's been used as a key part of the Mac OS. And on the other, Microsoft is rumored to being using POWER (that is, IBM PowerPC) derived CPUs and ATI hardware for the next XBox.

    And yet we Mac users, who've had both for ages now, are out in the cold in the gaming market.

    Tanj. (There Ain't No Justice.)

    • I wouldn't say we are totally out in the cold - we did get UT 2004, we get a number of top games about a year later (like KOTOR), and Doom3 should be out for the Mac about the same time as other versions.

      Of course, then I read about Half Life 2 and I feel the need for a sweater.
  • What's with the "Japanese a plus", for the qualifications? I hope that they are talking about the language and not the ethnicity, because I know if you put Caucasian a plus you would have a shit storm from the equal rights groups.

    • Re:Japanese a plus (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's obviously equivalent to "English a plus", which I don't think is a problem in a job specification. "English a plus" doesn't mean only people from the southern part of Great Britain need apply.
  • I mean, will it support Ogg Vorbis???

  • What about other infrastructure pieces? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr Pippin ( 659094 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:48PM (#9847883)

    DirectX (and XNA) detail more than just graphics.

    You also have sound, storage management, process control, peripheral access (joysticks, etc.), and communications (broadband, dialup, etc).

    To truly be an open standard, all of above need to be addressed.

    And of course, once the above are agreed upon, deploying those same games on Linux becomes possible, without any added significant development costs.

    (I specifically did not mention content protection)

    • To truly be an open standard, all of above need to be addressed.

      An open standard doesn't mean a standard with a lot of features, it means one that an industry collaboratively agrees on and adopts. Many open standards with smaller scope could combine to give all the benefits of XNA. Indeed, OpenGL is for graphics, OpenML is for media authoring and storage, etc.

      XNA, just because it has a bunch of stuff in it, is not an open standard. Microsoft is solely responsible for its development.

      • I never stated XNA was an open standard. I stated that if we want a Open gaming standard to counter Microsofts XNA/DirectX, then graphics alone will not address the issue.

        OpenGL, OpenML, and the other specs listed only cover graphical parts of what XNA/DirectX addresse. Other open standards that game developers would use for a cross platform development environment need to exist, and cover what I mentioned.

        Yes, other smaller standard exists, but many duplicate each others functions. What I am stating is

  • Simple.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Elmdor ( 686364 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:54PM (#9847954) Homepage
    --Sony is trying to leverage existing open standards (OpenGL/ES) for engine development, and create a standard for middleware & engine communication. This allows Sony to spend less $$$ on internal development costs, eases 2nd & 3rd party development costs, thus allowing for easier porting of games. --This also could help development houses wary of the new EA/Criterion merger, and make new middleware products like RenderWare to be more easily accepted. --Open standards should mean more $$$ spent on better game-play, and could mean more innovation too. --This does NOT mean ps3 dev. kits will be opensouce, or even cheap... With opensouce or cheap kits, Sony would loose $$$, and their stock holders do not like that. --This does NOT mean that idie game companies can now make ps3 games... although it helps if they ever want to port from pc (opengl/es :) --This does NOT mean a lot of things, but is a step forward, in a common interest of Microsoft rivals/haters/many /.ers

  • Standard is Good for Developers (Score:3)

    by magic ( 19621 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:13PM (#9848108) Homepage
    Microsoft was right to use DirectX as the API for Xbox because it allowed PC developers to move content and code to Xbox. The PS2 API instead required a complete rewrite of graphics code-- not an easy way to start your console game project.

    I hope that PS3 will be OpenGL-like and support open formats because it reduces the cost to developers and increases portability between platforms (Xbox -> Xbox 2 will be a much easier engine port than PS2 -> PS3).

    -m

  • Sony and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AztecL0B0 ( 784666 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:34PM (#9848273)
    For anyone who has posted ideas about how Sony is doing this in order to fight Microsoft, I'd like to suggest to reconsider. Microsoft is NOT the 800 lb. gorilla in the cosole market. NOT even close. It holds 2nd place in the US ONLY and is 3rd world wide. The ONLY reason it has fared this well it is because it sells a PC for $150. If you have kept up with the specifications for the Xbox2, you know that it will not be as powerful as the first Xbox was at its time; therefore, it will lose some of its mass appeal. I own all 3 consoles and Halo, but one or 5 good titles do NOT make a console. Look at Dreamcast, granted, Sega had other problems as well, but their original lineup was impressive. Xbox2 must have a superb lineup in order to stay a close 3rd in world wide sales. Sony is trying to appeal to developers and correct its mistakes with the PS2 (difficulty in programming). I prefer Nintendo over the other 2 consoles, but I am realistic. I know it won't beat out PS3 and I am sure Microsoft won't be a real contender. Microsoft will not keep on throwing money after 9 years. By that time they will have lost 4 billion dollars, with a B.
  • ODE [ode.org] is a BSD licensed physics engine that is starting to gain acceptance in the propreitary game world. Open standards are no doubt important but I think LGPL and BSD licensed middleware is going to have an even bigger impact on the future of gaming, console or otherwise.

    I'm working on an open source driving simulator and we're using ODE to dramatically cut the development time, looks like Techland [xpandrally.com] figured it out with Xpand Rally. It's refreshing to see rampant innovation due to the reuse of code.
  • 'Colada' is Portugese for 'Glue'... Co-incidence?
  • But an open PS3 console, for which anyone could write games, would be cooler!

  • Microsoft owns part of Softimage [theregister.co.uk], so this "open" Sony standard, endorsed by SoftImage, is hardly a decisive blow to Microsoft.
    • Microsoft owns only 9% of Softimage. [winnetmag.com]

      The *used* to own all of Softimage, but since 1998, they just invest in them.
      • Yes, as I pointed out in my post. 9% of a company as big as SoftImage is not just profitable when SI participates in a winning spec. It's big enough to tell SI what spec to support. "Investment" means *ownership*, and 9% of a big corporation brings a lot of control, especially when coordinated with the rest of the "synergy" Microsoft brings to the boardroom.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Remember, Microsoft owns the patents covering OpenGL, which they bought from SGI.

    So, how long before this initiative is buried under a mountain of patent litigation, or the licensing fees are jacked up to make XNA cheaper?

Slashdot Top Deals

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Close