Topic: My two cents: Revolution will have more third-party support than PS3. (No, I'm not crazy.)

[NotSoStu]

WARNING: LONG READ.

Why do I think this? It's quite simple, actually, but to understand this we have to look to the past. Note that this has a lot of computer-related lingo, so watch out...

*hops in time-travelling Delorean, sets it to January 2000*

Playstation 2 is the first next-generation console released, and developers flock to it seeing themselves having the success other developers had with the original PlayStation. Developers had a lot of trouble developing for it, since the SDK was unlike any others, and the CPU architecture was not directly related to any other architectures. However, they eventually learnt how to develop for it, since it was the only next-gen console out at the time (excluding the flop/bundle of joy known as DreamCast).

*sets Back to the Future car to Q3/Q4 2001*

So by now, developers have PS2 development down. They are now comfortable with the PS2's SDK, and even though it's difficult to work with, they don't want to change. So now, Microsoft has already announced its' entry into the console market, the Xbox... Which is just a computer with a 733MHz Celeron and an upgraded nVidia GeForce 3. For non-computer-hardware-savvy people, this is basically a run-of-the-mill computer. Hence, any company that had developed games for a PC using the DirectX programming libraries was already at home on the Xbox, and its' SDK.

And then, there's the odd man out... Nintendo's GameCube. It's running on an IBM "Gecko" chip, which is a custom PowerPC chip. PPC is the type of CPU that is used in Apple's Mac (well, until recently, but more on that later). And one thing that's a trade-off when you get a Mac is this: Unfortunately, barely anybody develops Mac games. No game developers have any real experience with the PPC architecture yet. Well, except for one of the major Mac games companies, Bungie... But I think we all know how they turned out. Because of this, even though it had a very easy-to-learn SDK, Nintendo's GCN hasn't really done so well in the third-party department.

*goes back to the present time*

Okay, now we're back in late 2005. So let's go through the systems again, by time of introduction. Microsoft's X360 is, again, a computer, but now resembles a Mac computer more than an x86 computer (anything that runs Windows is an x86 box). It's running on three custom PowerPC variants and an ATi video card based on the R500 core. This situation will be very similar to that of the Playstation 2: The first one out gets the most support. The SDK is reportedly very different from that of the original Xbox. Unlike the PS2 situation, however, the X360's development environment (the program in which code is written and compiled) is based off of Visual Studio 2005, giving it at least some recognizability to PC and Xbox developers. John Carmack, the creator of the Doom series, says that he as a PC developer is extremely satisfied with X360's development environment.

Next up, we have everybody here's favorite future console, Nintendo's Revolution. We don't have much in the way of solid information specifications-wise, but we know this: Nintendo has said that Revolution development will be similar, if not exactly the same as the Gamecube's SDK. We also know that Gamecube games will be playable inside a Revolution. And lastly, we know that IBM will be manufacturing the CPU. From this, I think it is logical to believe that Revolution will feature a processor that is very similar to that of the Gamecube. Meaning that Revolution will most likely have a PowerPC variant at its' heart. We also know that the video card will be using ATi's RN520 core. (ATi bought the company that made the GCN's graphics core, which in turn was made up of a bunch of guys from Silicon Graphics who developed the N64's graphics chip.) Of course, the main thing Revolution has going for it is the controller, but we don't know anything about that yet, excluding the fact that it will be backwards-compatible with the controllers of previous consoles... Meaning that the controller won't require third-party developers to make some cockamaney control scheme for Revolution if they are porting games from X360 or Revolution.

And lastly, the Playstation 3. Ah, Sony, always trying to do some crazy stuff with your hardware. Specifically, this time, with their Cell processor. The Cell CPU is, in a few words, a PPC CPU with seven much less powerful "mini-CPUs" attached to it, each of which can be assigned with a specific task - For instance, calculating physics. In the PC world, programmers have a known grudge against developing for just two CPUs running in tandem (dual-core). Now just imagine how much devs are going to love developing for 8 CPUs. Developers have never liked Sony's SDKs, and the reason they put up with them is because they were the only available way to develop for the only available next-generation console. But that's not all! Sony's making the same mistake Nintendo made in the Nintendo 64 era: Their storage medium is too expensive. Sony is using their Blu-Ray storage medium instead of DVDs, and Blu-Ray is pretty expensive. Also, lastly, Sony hired nVidia to make their RSX graphics chip.

So let's compare the three.

X360:
-SDK: "XNA". Somewhat similar to Xbox/PC development
-CPU: Xenon. Which is just 3 custom PPCs. Architecture is new to Xbox/PC developers. Multi-threading (>1 CPU) is optional, but it's a pain to programmers.
-GPU: ATi R500. ATi is oneo f the big players in the PC graphics industry, and the R500 core is their next big upgrade. Hasn't been unveiled yet.
-Storage: DVD9. More expensive than DVD, much less expensive than Blu-ray.

Revolution
-SDK: "???". Exactly the same as the GameCube.
-CPU: IBM Broadway. It's a PPC, and that's all we know. Meaning it will be familiar to anybody that develops for PPC - which is in all next-gen consoles. We don't know if it'll have more than one core.
-GPU: ATi Hollywood. Uses RN520 core, which will probably be similar to X360's R500.
-Storage: DVD. Cheapest of the three.

PS3:
-SDK: "???". Entirely new. Has a history of being hard to develop for.
-CPU: The Cell. Based on PPC, but will require extremely annoying multi-threaded programs.
-GPU: nVidia RSX. No real details on it yet.
-Storage: Blu-Ray. Expensive but holds more.





So what can we deduct from this? It's quite simple - Revolution and X360 seem to share a lot in common. I would not be surprised if many third-party developers released their games for both X360 and Revolution, since their innards are so similar. And PS3, with such a high learning curve and higher cost, will probably be left in the dust.

Just my two cents.  

[Mario]

I think you're putting far too much stock in the technical specs of each system, the REAL reason companies get third party support is all about the image of the console, the target audience (some third parties don't make GC games because only babies play Nintendo), the incentives from the console maker, the userbase (you could argue that all userbases will start from scratch, but Sony and MS have MUCH more mindshare than Nintendo, "what's a Nintendo"). Look at all the support for the PS2, development for that is called a "challenge", if PS2 wasn't the market leader developers would just say "f*** that, not worth my time". Then again, I don't know anything about technical specs so my opinion doesn't matter.

I just hope the Revolution has strong third party support FROM THE BEGINNING. It needs it right away, and perhaps the points you've outlined will lead to that. The situation with the GC was, it wasn't selling because it had no strong third party support, and the reason it had no strong third party support was because it wasn't selling. Revolution must have strong third party support and make a big bang from the word go, so third parties don't hesitate and the same situation doesn't happen again.

[NotSoStu]

(Tiku = kid-like... PGC filters out the K-word and replaces it with "tiku tiku tiku!" )

Good point. However, I actually don't think it'll take too much trouble to change Nintendo's... Ahem, "tiku" image. GCN, as you said, had a horrible start - I mean, I love it and all, but the console itself looks "tiku" and the launch games didn't help that. The industrial design of Revolution (Well, the one we were shown at E3) shows they're trying to move away from the whole "kiddiness" thing. If the launch titles are of the same variety as GCN, but also includes a game or two that mainstream gamers ("lol blood secks n gunz maek a gud gaem") would like, they could really improve that image. They'd have to make sure that they don't get rid of the Nintendo charm in the process. A game like Geist is a good example of a more adult-oriented game that still has its' Nintendo imprint on it. (Yeah, I know n-Space developed it, but Nintendo gave them a lot of help.) A darker game like Metroid Prime at launch time would mean extremely good things for the image.

And as for third-party support from the beginning? Well, from what I've been seeing, third parties like it a lot already. For instance, I mean, hell, even Hideo Kojima likes it, and the only Nintendo work I think he's ever done is MGS:TTS and the original Metal Gear for NES. Something that would be a surefire way to get third-party support would be to show off the controller to big names like Konami and Square... Which, I should mention, are both signed on for Revolution development already, even with a history of ignoring Nintendo.  

[Renny]

Well I'm sure by year's end Kojima will once again declare Nintendo's system tiku tiku tiku!  (that is if he hasn't already). According to him the GBA, GameCube and DS are for little children and any normal, masculine guy with a hardon for guns owns a PlayStation, or potentially an Xbox (you dirty gaijin). Any development support from him will be unadvertised by Konami and forgotten when the next Metal Gear Solid is released.

[IceCold]

Yeah, like Mario said, all of these technical aspects will get thrown out of the window as it is ultimately the publisher's decision as to what console the game should be on. And then userbases and image are more important

[MarioAllStar]

Difficulty of development could limit the amount of games produced on PS3 (or other consoles as well), which would probably make many Sony lovers angry as they are used to quantity over quality, at least I think they are.

[King of Twitch]

history GC lost out by being a full year behind. It doesn't matter there were huge PS2 shortages when it came out and that it was too difficult to work for. Nintendo had nothing between Majoras Mask and Luigi's Mansion; then self-destructed by not having any big titles till SMS at the end of summer, and goofing off with GBA connectivity and selling off 2nd parties while MGS2, GTA, etc were selling huge.

There's no way Revolution will have more support than PS3, it's like saying in 2004 the PSP will have more support than the DS. With an extra 6 months and the steam of the PS1 and PS2 era, PS3 will have several million in the bank; with 360's year lead, extra Christmas season to itself, and 6 months of Halo 3 on the shelves, it could have several million more than that.

[KDR_11k]

The X360 is supposedly much harder to work with than the PS3... Oh and don't listen to Gabe Newell, I don't think that guy even knows what "embedded system" means.

From your X360 summary:
Multi-threading (>1 CPU) is optional

Yes, just like more than two colors and one button are optional. If you want to make a game that has a chance competing in the market you're going to use that multithreading. You can use the Cell without the SPEs as well but the program will run like ass.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Actually if you looked at Kojima's billboard of project history which was at E3 or whatever he completely denies the existance of the xbox version of MGS2:Substance. http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/img_2793830.html and thats your proof.

[KDR_11k]

Perhaps he just wasn't involved in it?

[stevey]

" PPC is the type of CPU that is used in Apple's Mac (well, until recently, but more on that later). And one thing that's a trade-off when you get a Mac is this: Unfortunately, barely anybody develops Mac games. No game developers have any real experience with the PPC architecture yet. Well, except for one of the major Mac games companies, Bungie... But I think we all know how they turned out. Because of this, even though it had a very easy-to-learn SDK, Nintendo's GCN hasn't really done so well in the third-party department."

proof of mac suckeg. nintendo goes mac and lose all of it market share and top places.  

[KnowsNothing]

N64 was a mac!!!!!11!`2123!

[Kazeneko]

Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
Actually if you looked at Kojima's billboard of project history which was at E3 or whatever he completely denies the existance of the xbox version of MGS2:Substance. http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/img_2793830.html and thats your proof.

I find it even more amazing, that there's no mention of Metal Gear for the Nintendo Entertainment System/Famicom?!   I'd bet good money, that before Metal Gear Solid, they were the best selling editions of the series.

 

[KDR_11k]

N64 was a mac!

Wasn't the N64 a MIPS-based system, like the PSP?

[Gamebasher]

Don´t be so sure that the problems surrounding the developement side of thing next-gen for Sony and Microsoft won´t have an impact. I don´t want to listen to anymore of these two lime-light transfixed gaming companies and companies like them who think they´re going to be around forever, and make all their followers believe the same.

Because they won´t and all the while they´re busy talking about how great their consoles are, and how many new gamers they are going to attract (Microsoft must be on drugs thinking they can get 250 million gamers with their underpowered piece of hardware with features mostly useless to the developers and only a few great first party titles) and what only God knows what other bs they are going to come up with.  They are already losing money on consoles sold at a lower price than what they cost to manufacture which is eroding their capitol (and I DON´T care how many loans or how much goodwill they may otherwise have for also SUCH will come to a dead end for them one day), and stock market value, until the big day where it all becomes too obvious to the shareholders who will then jump ship and crash the same companies like THAT! These people will not con ME anymore, I know how the financial world works and they wont be able to go on in that way.

But they would like YOU to believe just that, which is probably the only resaon why companies like Sony are still in the videogame business. I have discussed this with PGC Forum members before, and some did indeed agree with me that Sony was able to pour out huge sums of money into advertising, which made average gamers swallow it! and buy away (average Joe gamer). The issue of cheap games from counterfeit gaming traders is another thing which kept them going. They DID NOT make gaming cool - Nintendo´s Mario and SEGA´s Sonic did!

And that is what has me perplexed: how can somebody think that a company like Sony can go on and on investing such huge amounts of money in advertising all the time, not rake in a healthy profit on it´s consoles and yet claim they can go and on? I do recall that Moodys Investors Service downgraded their stocks some time ago and haven´t heard anything about it since. So, the old Man With the Axe is stalking them, and next gen could well be where they will pay for all the damage they´ve done in the videogame industry, yet sought to let people not know about in various ways.

Don´t believe me? Then you may have forgotten that bankruptcies with gaming companies are happening all the time, and that factors (in that order!) like ongoing market stagnation (too many gamers feel they either don´t have the time to play through a game to the end or they feel they are too expensive causing drops in sales), Piracy (they will then be prone to offers coming from counterfeit game traders eaning that the games companies will rake in less money for their products) and rising advertisement costs (which must be raked back in through other means, but can´t if being too small or too overlooked because of the first two factors).

THESE types of current market forces combined apply a considerable pressure on each and every games company out there and many can´t stay affloat and so will exit developement. This leaves the playground to bigger and fewer companies who CAN stay affloat, and who gobble up the remains of others and grow increasingly big and powerfull...and so are in a position to dictate the gaming agenda! I see them (EA, EIDOS, UBISOFT, CODEMASTERS, NAMCO, KONAMI etc.) as standing with the choice of ruining the whole games market entirely or saving it. Their choice of quality i their games or lack of same will be the catalyst which will show us where things will go. To hell or to heaven. From what I have read here on the PGC Forums about the hardware inside XBOX360 and PS3 I deduct that the developers thinking they will be fine with those, are in for a rude awakening when they discover that narrowed profit margins in an already struggling market has a lot to do with complicated hardware!

Nintendo however seems to be the only ones who have any healthy console system, which will make it easier on the third party developers. I do know that Nintendo tries all the time to make the games so wonderfull to play for the gamer and so comfortable to develope for the developers that they will eventually succeed! So, yes, Revolution could have more support than PS3. If not in the beginning, they will soon get it, as many companies wont be able to go on looking on reduced profits coming from skyrocketing developement- and marketing costs!

Keep going Nintendo - you ARE the true King of videogaming!
     

[Terranigma Freak]

Umm, actually I just want to point out one very simple problem that no one has mentioned yet... Development costs are skyrocketing as the systems become more powerful. To make a game require like 10 million dollars. I'm not sure about the exact number but it's definitely huge. This is one of the reasons why games could be going back to cart prices this generation, but if Nintendo can reduce development costs like they promised, then I think there's hope.

[Ian Sane]

Well you're not crazy, but you're naive.  Developers don't decide what game goes where.  Publishers do that and all that matters to them is market share or potential market share.  Nintendo has the least actual and potential market share of all three console makers so they are not getting more third party support than the PS3.  Publishers don't care if something is developer friendly.  If they can make the games they think will sell on the PS3 they'll do it and they'll force the devs to learn.  Sony has to pull an N64 to lose their support and there's no indication they're going to do that unless they charge like $1000 for the PS3 or something.

I want to see Nintendo get the best third party support but I know it's not going to happen with the Rev.  What I want to see is the Rev have better third party support than the Cube and to have support increase as the console ages instead of shrink.  Nintendo loses market share each gen.  They have to start gaining market share each gen first before talk of beating Sony is to be even remotely realistic.  Baby steps first.

Can Nintendo go up for a change?  Sure.  But we need to know more about the Rev first before any accurate predictions are made.

[Stimutacs Addict]

speaking of knowing about the rev.. does anyone else feel like ninty might get their ass beat at TGS? Sony is likely to pull out another amazing tech demo (hell this one might be in real time, or maybe even playable) running on a system that's likely to be far from the final build of the ps3, whereas NIntendo will merely announce, demonstrate, and outline prices, features, business plans for the Revo

of course, we might not see the REv at all.. nintendo has never had a strong TGS showing.

[Bill Aurion]

Sony is likely to pull out another amazing tech demo (hell this one might be in real time, or maybe even playable)

Amazing and Realtime, by Sony?  Ahaha...

[Spak-Spang]

Their are two blunders that Sony are making that COULD make this scenerio (although unlikely) happen.

1)Somehow Xbox 360 is able to penetrate in Japan causing the early launch to really have full impact on this next generation.  As of right now, if it Xbox 360 just grabs the US market, then we have the same situation as this generation.

2)The price point alienates several gamers, and scares off publishers once sales aren't meeting expectations and development costs are higher.

The big problem Nintendo has is that my second mistake listed helps Microsoft as well.  The actual best thing for Nintendo is for the 1st mistake not to happen and the 2nd to happen.  That would mean the Japanese market would fall back into Nintendo's hand...and with that market comes more 3rd party support.  

Also it is important to note that Nintendo has loyalists.  People assumed that to be true about Sony, but when Xbox came out many Sony supporters jumped shipped.  We don't know if Microsoft has loyalists yet, because a second system has never been released.  Nintendo loyalists may be decreasing each generation, but the fact that they exist at all is a huge plus for Nintendo...and if the Revolution is something truly unique it may wake up that Nintendo loyalist that went for Xbox or PS2 this generation because they wanted to play the games available.

Another thing to remember is with each generation a sort of slate cleansing happens.  Yes people are going to remember who was first place last generation, but that image can change instantly.  And good marketing and games can drastically change perception.  If Nintendo markets itself correctly they can kill that negative "I LOVE HALO 2" perception they have.  Specially, with a few launch games that really drive that point home.  

[vudu]

Quote
Well you're not crazy, but you're naive. Developers don't decide what game goes where. Publishers do that and all that matters to them is market share or potential market share.

Not exactly true.  Publishers don't give a rat's ass about market share.  They don't even care how many copies of their game gets sold.

All they should care about is profit.  If they can sell 100,000 copies of a game at $15 profit each, they'll take that in a heartbeat over 250,000 copies at $5 each.  So if Nintendo can lower development costs enough (compared to PS3 and X360), it will be more than worth it to publish games on their platform.

BTW, no way will Revolution have more third-party support than PS3.  I'll be happy if 75% of the games worth playing make it over.

[Ian Sane]

"All they should care about is profit. If they can sell 100,000 copies of a game at $15 profit each, they'll take that in a heartbeat over 250,000 copies at $5 each. So if Nintendo can lower development costs enough (compared to PS3 and X360), it will be more than worth it to publish games on their platform."

That's true but it will depend on certain factors and on the difference between sales figures.  100,000 to 250,000 isn't a bad difference but 100,000 and 1,000,000 sure as hell is.  If there's a huge difference in potential sales then a publisher would still make more money on the PS3.  Plus this only works if the Rev actually is cheaper to make games for.  Nintendo is infamous for having higher licencing fees than the competition.  Nintendo regards third parties more as suckers to exploit for easy cash then as partners.  When Nintendo wants to lower development costs they mean THEIR development costs.  They traditionally don't give a sh!t about anyone else.

It's not a bad idea but it would require Nintendo to completely change their way of dealing with third parties.  That's something they should do but I really doubt they ever will.

[KDR_11k]

Don´t be so sure that the problems surrounding the developement side of thing next-gen for Sony and Microsoft won´t have an impact

Sure, they'll have an impact. As does throwing pebbles at a concrete wall.

Terranigma Freak: That's what they say every single f###ing generation. "Oh, no, games are getting more expensive to make, we must increase the prices next gen!". Only MS seems to be willing to do that, though. The reality of the market is that 50 is already too much for many people and sales will only go down from higher prices.

Sony's arrogance could very well lead to reduced (probably not severely, though) third party support as their demands often increase costs and when it comes to money managers suddently start to understand.

but when Xbox came out many Sony supporters jumped shipped.

The N64 lost much more to the PS1 than the PS2 to the XBox. You can only be sure Sony lost its loyalists when 100% of the userbase jumps ship, otherwise you could argue that the remaining users are the loyalists and the rest just want games regardless of who makes them.

So if Nintendo can lower development costs enough (compared to PS3 and X360), it will be more than worth it to publish games on their platform.

Yes but that's impossible unless they just have a lower-specced system with less detailled graphics. The API is the smallest problem as that'll be abstracted away after a few months.

[vudu]

Quote
[Lowering developing costs is] impossible unless they just have a lower-specced system with less detailled graphics.

.  Hasn't it been argeed upon that the Revolution won't support HD?  Won't that mean less detailed graphics (although not noticable on standard def televisions)?  Granted, that probably won't mean anything for multiplatform games, but ones that are developed solely for Revolution should be able to get away with a smaller budget.

[pudu]

Quote
So if Nintendo can lower development costs enough (compared to PS3 and X360), it will be more than worth it to publish games on their platform.

Yes but that's impossible unless they just have a lower-specced system with less detailled graphics. The API is the smallest problem as that'll be abstracted away after a few months.

From the art side of things to make the visuals will be equally hard on each platform because they use the same programs.  For some things smoothing out the visualls and adding certain details isn't all that hard.  But if Sony's and Microsoft's consoles are vastly more powerful then Nintendo's and there just isn't the same amount of detail to be modeled and textures to be created then that could lower development cost but not a ton.  Think about the new tech. of normal maps.  To make a good normal map you must create a high-poly character first and use it for the maps on the low poly character.  This process won't change regardless of the platform.  Also, there will be more time spent on ports where if it originated on, say PS3, it could take a lot of extra time to strip away enough detail to make it run on the Revolution (all hypothetical of coarse, we yet to know the difference in power).

I think perhaps the biggest issue this next gen for developement costs will be the architecture of the CPU's.  No amount of supplied tools from Microsoft and Sony will be enough to truely ease the programmers herendous task of learning to program for multi-core CPUs.  If Nintendo goes multi-core then these same problems will plaigue all next-gen consoles and drive up development costs and time.  On the other hand, if Nintendo goes for a powerful single-core CPU and maybe a PPU (pipe dream I know but I can wish) this would truely ease development.