Book covers creation of PS3's Cell processor, how Microsoft cribbed it for Xbox

Sir Fishouse is obviously faking his nerd cred.

Oh no, I don't fit in anymore because you don't get my jokes. Whatever will I do.

Wait... so the two guys who designed the Cell proc are making claims that trash the 360? These guys have to be the biggest PS3 fanboys in the world as they designed the damn thing, so should anyone be really be paying attention to *anything* they have to say on the matter? That would be like believing any a Chevy engineer has to say about a Ford product that had parts from a shared manufacturer. "Dude we totally designed those brake pads first, and Ford ripped us off!"

Christ... I should write a book seeing how apparently anyone can get published these days.

I really need to proof-read my posts before hitting submit. Yeesh.

Search your feelings, you know it be true!
You can feel the midichlorians in your...Cells...

There's something about this Wii, its midichlorian count is off the charts, even higher than master yoda's. Could this be the chosen one? Could the wii bring balance to gaming?

Live long and prosper PS3

I think Nintendo misunderstood. They brought a balance board to gaming.

If PS3 is the father of 360... that means balance will be brought to gaming if 360 kills PS3! HA. Sorry... a bit of geek humor if we are painting gaming with the Star Wars theme. Carry on!!

Except that with PS3 dead, 360 would lose in a long run...

This is coming from a hard MS fanboy btw.

Actually JD, Luke didn't kill Vader- Vader died saving Luke from the Emperor. I don't even like Star Wars and even I remembered that shit.

So something like, "The PS3 will restore balance to the force by throwing the Wii down an exhaust shaft to save the xbox360" would be more appropriate.

Live long and prosper though?

"The PS3 will restore balance to the force by throwing the Wii down an exhaust shaft to save the xbox360"

This is what should happen.

trophies and in game music was sony's idea?
i never knew..
rumble too?

come on they all copy each other...

xbox failed.
xbox 360 has been profiting since 1st quarter 2007.

ps2 did great.
ps3 is failing and has not produced $ 1 profit yet.

and it would be a great idea for sony to remove UNNECCESSARY accessories from the ps3 console that are only wanted items and are not needed.

fanboys call them needed items, but we can see with the 50-60 million 360/wii's sold thus far that they are not needed and dont matter.

ands its funny for sony to say they created or own the cell, when it looks like IBM did most or all of the work.

@Rell

It's a Vulcan saying... I made a jest.

"If the PS3 never takes off"? Are you stuck in 2005? Here in 2008/2009, it's a couple of million short (perhaps less, considering Microsoft count store demo units as sales).

This news is hardly surprising, Microsoft steal everyone elses ideas, always have done, always will do...

I agree with the sentiment of DigDug in terms of the PS3 having already took off. Here is the question I would love to get an answer for ...

How is Microsoft and the 360 in any better posistion than the PS3? They aren't! Both companies have lost billions of dollars during this generation on hardware and the nature of both relying on high fidelity graphics means the cost to develop the games is out of this world. One flop of a game is enough to make a company go under. What does that lead to? Parity! The developers have to make games that fit the sales trends of what people are already buying so the creativity is going to take somewhat of a backseat.

As much as I dislike some things about the Wii it's hard to deny that the business model is the correct one. Devlopment cost aren't as high so you can get a greater range of games being made. THis is why we have so much shovelware because it is cheap, easy to develop and will sell - even if it doesn't it won't put a company under. Thr risk isn't as great.

The blockbuster model of the PS360 is also why we tend to see sales drop completely off after about 4 weeks. On the flip side Wii games like Mario Kart & Wii Fit actually sell better as time goes along.

The choice of Nintendo to not focus on high end hardware, graphical fidelity and any special features is precisely the reason the console was able to launch and stay at $250.00. Because of the wider range of games that don't just cater to the hardcore elite gamer the platform is more sought after by people who traditionally not games (kids, soccer moms, grandma & grandpa etc ...)

There is no way that I want the business model of the Wii to be the standard modus operendi for Sony & MS. I like my high end, technophile elite console. Maybe they just need to do a better job of offering one super high end model and one stripped down but functional model. I think next generation the evolution of Blu-Ray and The Cell processor will allow Sony to get allot more power for allot less money.

Sorry for the wall of text but my main point is that Microsoft and Sony are pretty much in the exact same boat of having hardware that bleeds money in the billions and never turns a profit. They are also so expensive to develop for that we will never have a wide array of games like on the Wii (maybe in 2-3 years as techniques are refined). I would also imagine as this generation moves forward and PS3 development because more streamlined and less cumbersome we will see an elimination of mandatory installs. This would benefot because then Sony could sell it a small amount of on board memory.

I hate to say it but Sony needs to use the 360 model and strip the console down to it's bare bones and sell it for less money. Remove the USB ports (except maybe 1 or 2), remove the built in Wi-Fi in favor of a simple ethernet port (sell a wireless adapter) and remove the HDD from the console. At least that way you can sell a stripped down version (like the 360's arcade) for a cheaper retail price.

@Little Big PSN ID: johnnynumber5

The difference is that Microsoft has about $50 billion cash to lose without any debt.

Sony does not have that sort of cash but DOES have lots of debt.

I was under the impression that the xbox division of MS was doing well, not losing billions a la the playstation department of Sony right now. Hence the story on the front page about MS dropping 15k of their 90k employees, but with the "highly profitable xbox division likely to be unaffected".

"This news is hardly surprising, Microsoft steal everyone elses ideas, always have done, always will do..."

I know right, like those ideas about putting hard drives into consoles and developing an integrated online infastructure that lives outside the games themselves.

Oh, wait...

Err, that should say "well performing", not "highly profitable". Tis what I get for not actually looking up the quote first.

vcsize

What you have to consider is that MS consolidated the X-Box division with the entertainment division (Zune etc ...) and they wrote off a few billion in debt in one financial quarter. Noe, there is also no knowledge if the extended warranty has actually cost them more money than that. Even Ballmer stated the 360 is a funny project because it doesn't turn a profit.

If you actually believe that MS has turned a profit on hardware your just drinking the kool-aid. You are correct that the major difference is Microsoft can piss away billions without any affect on the company.

In terms of competition MS and Sony have both been completely pwned by Nintendo. The MS FUD about selective statistics and trying to minimize the Wii as competition has lead it's loyal userbade ti be delusional and actually believe that being ahead of Sony means they are winning the console wars. In fact, Sony is ahead of MS at the same point in their histories with a higher cost of entry and competition.

The forecast of the PS3 & 360 is equally bleak.

I don't know anything about the business behind the games industry, or big business in general, so I'm just kind of trying to logically deduce things here so you could definitely be very right about what you're saying.

However, the general perception at least seems to be that things have been worse for Sony on this front by quite a bit. The 360 has sold more consoles, stopped selling them at a loss longer ago, has made way more money on peripherals, probably has made money on Xbox Live (whereas Sony's network is pure loss since there is no income related to it), and most importantly has sold egads more software. Also, I doubt the 360 was ever sold at as large a loss as the $200+ loss that Sony maintained for almost 2 years.

Those seem like some pretty big differences to me. The only balancing factor is the RROD fiasco, and I have no idea how all those things in the list above compare to what they lost due to RROD, it's all pure conjecture and guesswork on my end, I will readily admit that.

I don't really buy into the "the PS3 sold more at this point in its life than the 360 did at this point in its life" either. That 1 year headstart doesn't go away, it will always be there. Also, people are much less inclined to jump into the next gen early on. Even many of the hardcorest of hardcore gamers didn't take the plunge into the next-gen until all 3 consoles were released, but almost all serious gamers will have by this point in the PS3's lifetime. Besides, the 360 had a pretty successful 3rd year (especially the end of it) on both a hardware and software front, so assuming that the PS3 forecast will improve just as much in year 3 is a little out there, especially given their poor holiday season. The 360 rode a very successful year 2 holiday season into year 3, whereas sales-wise the PS3 is coming off a very disappointing year 2 holiday season. The PS3 has some great looking exclusives lined up in the future, so hopefully that will push them through to a good year 3 of their own. I'd like to think those AAA titles still stand for something in the days of the shovelware that Nintendo has brought us.

If you compare the worldwide sales figures of the 360 at 2 years (same time period) and the PS3 the Playstation has sold more consoles with a higher cost of entry and competition. That's a fact Jack.

By the end of it's second year the 360 sold a total of 13,680,000 consoles. In it's first two years the Playstation 3 has sold 18,820,000.

Now my only point in saying this is that all the doom and gloom scenarios don't account for these types of comparisons. People only want to compare total sales figures as they stand right now. The biggest point to consider os how much the 360 benefited from it's recent price reduction. Whose to say that Sony will not see a similar benefit from a similar price drop. It is all conjecture but if you look at these figures in different ways you get different results.

The overriding theme and point of all of this is that the Wii is the console that has been completely pwning both of them.

I figured that atleast one person would misread the article and assume that Microsoft had "stolen" the cell processor.

I find it hard to believe that the Cell and the 360's processor have that much in common. One is x86, and one is not....where are the similarities besides who made them, and that they have multiple cores? I suppose I'd have to buy the book and read it to find out.

Yet the son came before the father. That's odd...

works well as a money printer. That's great for them, but for us, not so much. My shovelware player hasn't even been turned on in ages.

I am glad Sony and MS made NEW systems with NEW technology rather than repackaged OLD technology. I am very much looking forward to 2009 with the PS3, so many games that I must find the money to buy starting with KZ2.

Actually the Wii is new technology, it's got the Wiimote. But yea Levi, when i realized my Wii hadn't been turned on since the release of Brawl, i got up off my ass and sold it, then i dumped the money into a PS3 :/ I figured I'd play that more than the wii lol

Cell was touted as a Television CPU for the longest time.

"Actually the Wii is new technology, it's got the Wiimote."

Which is not new technology. You can get the same infrared sensor bar technology in the LCD topgun which came out years before the Wii. And the wiimote is simply licensed technology from gyration who makes similar devices for PC.

Wiimote is nothing new. Nothing about the Wii is new.

@Extinction: Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo just took some computer hardware and wrote some software for it. Nothing about the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 or Wii is new.

Than what do you suppose would be considered "new" technology for consoles?

Yup.. and vice versa.

Let's see... what's easier to install overnight: a large online gaming community and intuitive operating system into a PS3... or a Blu-Ray drive and Wifi into a 360?

Depends on how many episodes you spend powering up while watching long, pointless flashbacks.

xbl

oh yeah, it's sooo easy. that's why MS left them out, and charges $100 for the wireless adapter. Cause it was TOO easy to include them in the 360. While they were at it, it could've been SOOO easy to build a reliable console that didn't have a 30% failure rate to begin with.

SOOO MUCH EASIER!

not only that. among the 2 choices you mentioned, Sony can still, if they want, make those changes on existing consoles through firmware upgrades over the internet. You have to BUY new 360's if MS adds those features. Even the wii has wifi built in. wtf.

MS already had the xbl infrastructure up, and they just improved on it. And they already have experience making OS's. All they really had to worry about was hardware. So how did they fail so much there? cough*RROD*cough*30%*cough

Sony had to make psn almost from scratch, their PS3 OS from scratch, and even had to change it considerably for ingame xmb, they invested in what they hoped to be the most powerful cpu, they made the console very reliable, and for shits and giggles, added a blu ray drive and built in wifi.

You shouldn't downplay it. And if you've read any of johnny's posts, ps3 has done pretty well so far. Sony doesn't have money to burn, so they can't get away with the same RROD bullshit. MS can buy up all the exclusives, without having to earn back the money, just to starve the ps3 of games.

Yup, it would seem obvious that IBM would prefer to reuse cell technology rather than invent everything from scratch. What does niggle is that MS and its goons spread a lot of nonsense about the cell being "useless for gaming code" "only good for floating ops" etc etc when they were using much of the same tech - but thats MS for you!

And whatever the wii does, one thing it simply doesnt make is "strategic sense". Its selling a lot of units to non-gamers who are unlikely to buy another console and the 30 million or so core gamers are going to be fully hooked up to PS3 / 360 and their online communities. And dont forget that they have much LOWER third party support than even the N64 and their inhouse programmers are years behind in next gen tech compared to Sony / MS

Remember This?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKT10757920070915

@colinbell

The reason MS made the claim that the Cell in the PS3 was not useful for gaming was because it has one general core and 7 floating point cores, the 360's processor has 3 general cores, so what this is saying is that the 360's processor is basically 3 of the Cell's general cores.

MS's contention was that the floating point cores were not as useful as the additional general purpose cores.

Wii has lower 3rd party support than the N64? I don't think so. SEGA, Capcom, Bandai-Namco, and Marvelous Interactive are making the best experience so far