Sony hate thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
676176D3-CA97-492C-B0DE-17130101741A.png

No one likes someone else’s sloppy seconds, Sony.

Especially on Facebook of all places.
 
albert the programmer said:
View attachment 2949809

No one likes someone else’s sloppy seconds, Sony.

Especially on Facebook of all places.
Click to expand...
Faggot jumped on that one, if he's gonna complain about xbox being woke he should've know sony is just as bad if not worse, specially after the summer of love 2020 edition. This kinda reminded me back when nintendo's social media accounts were straight up the last to say BLM and only did so after tards keept screaming at their posts for over a week.
 
ellroy said:
Not only that, there was genuine love for the PS2 at Sony. Sony even made a Linux kit for it so people could play around with Linux on their console. You don’t make those kind of kits unless you genuinely want people to tinker around with your product.
Click to expand...
PS3 had other OS build into where you could put linux on it however they remove it when the ps3 slim came out and even patched it out of the ps3. Sony ended getting sued for that.
 
Product Placement said:
PS3 had other OS build into where you could put linux on it however they remove it when the ps3 slim came out and even patched it out of the ps3. Sony ended getting sued for that.
Click to expand...
That ended before the slim. Sony made the decision they were going to patch it out early around Q3 2009. In fact they brought it up as they were going to discontinue support immediately in Q3 2009 and then patched it out in 2010. That’s not a decision you make overnight.

I would also say it isn’t as impressive as Linux on the PS2 because you had a fairly new computer operating system with the ability to put it on a video game console; a fairly novel idea. OtherOS was done to just show off Cell, it was never meant to be home user friendly. You couldn’t even get access to the GPU as a developer. OtherOS was a very flawed idea. Sony also went after modders for trying to circumvent the firmware patches which is a notoriously shitty thing to do.

Because of the timing of announcement was at the same time the writing was on the wall for Cell; I think Sony was just pissed off and wanted to bury Cell. IBM engineers have come out afterwards and said Sony sunk a lot of money into Cell at an almost disproportionate amount compared to the other alliance members and they were upset at the failures of the architecture not taking off. These failures probably forced Sony to give up semiconductor production since they used to dabble with licensed MIPS chips prior.

If Sony loved the PS3 like they did the PS2, it would of been a different experience. The PS3 was the suits running engineering and foreshadowing of the what the PS4 and PS5 would become.
 
albert the programmer said:
View attachment 2949809

No one likes someone else’s sloppy seconds, Sony.

Especially on Facebook of all places.
Click to expand...
The correct response would be "if you actually cared, you wouldn't clam up about it the second the shortest month of the year ends, only to pull the same pretend bullcrap in June with the LGBT"
 
Smaug's Smokey Hole said:
Even if you dislike the games you can't disagree with me saying that they make several of them. That's my point. Activision doesn't make games, they make A game.
Click to expand...
it doesn't matter if I like the games or not, but given the reception and word of mouth not a lot of people seem to in general. activision could make other games like they did in the past, but if it just burns their money what's the point? inevitably shareholders gonna ask why they waste money on studios that can't produce shit. the same is gonna happen with ubisoft and EA eventually, EA already said recently they don't consider battlefield major anymore after dice violently shat the bed twice, and those two are severely more mismanaged than activision ever was (which is also proof blizzard being blizzard is all on them, if activision was as involved as people pull up as an excuse, it would look like the rest of their company, not the shitshow it has been for years).

my point is there's a reason activision was milking cod as hard as they could, part of it greed, part of it necessity.

another thing to remember they are now owned by a platform owner, they are not a publisher anymore. as a publisher you only make money by selling games, but as a platform owner you can get away with losses if it makes up for it otherwise, in the case of consoles by getting people to buy the hardware (which is usually also sold as a loss) and then locking them in so they purchase services and microtransactions. microsoft can grab any of activision's or blizzard's IPs (or ones we've long forgotten about over the decades), it doesn't even have to make them money, but it will make people think twice if they have to decide between xbox and playstation, and that was always the most difficult part.
 
ellroy said:
That ended before the slim. Sony made the decision they were going to patch it out early around Q3 2009. In fact they brought it up as they were going to discontinue support immediately in Q3 2009 and then patched it out in 2010. That’s not a decision you make overnight.

I would also say it isn’t as impressive as Linux on the PS2 because you had a fairly new computer operating system with the ability to put it on a video game console; a fairly novel idea. OtherOS was done to just show off Cell, it was never meant to be home user friendly. You couldn’t even get access to the GPU as a developer. OtherOS was a very flawed idea. Sony also went after modders for trying to circumvent the firmware patches which is a notoriously shitty thing to do.

Because of the timing of announcement was at the same time the writing was on the wall for Cell; I think Sony was just pissed off and wanted to bury Cell. IBM engineers have come out afterwards and said Sony sunk a lot of money into Cell at an almost disproportionate amount compared to the other alliance members and they were upset at the failures of the architecture not taking off. These failures probably forced Sony to give up semiconductor production since they used to dabble with licensed MIPS chips prior.

If Sony loved the PS3 like they did the PS2, it would of been a different experience. The PS3 was the suits running engineering and foreshadowing of the what the PS4 and PS5 would become.
Click to expand...
Sony sunk tons of money into Cell, I think they built a fab for it that cost 8-10 billion dollars in 2004. Toshiba was their partner back then because the idea was to put it into TVs and other stuff, they actually had a cool demo of that and I think one or two Toshiba TVs might have gone to market. IBM put out a Cell blade or two but no one ever iterated on the architecture. It was a huge flop built around Kutaragi, riding high on PS1 and PS2, thinking The Matrix was cool and he paid the price. There was also the GS Cube or whatever it was called(please help me remember the name) that proved that multiprocessing was viable.

That doesn't mean the announcement and endeavor was a fools errand and I think Sun(relevant at the time) was the ones doing a "hey guys, we are also making a thing like that".
 
Smaug's Smokey Hole said:
Sony sunk tons of money into Cell, I think they built a fab for it that cost 8-10 billion dollars in 2004. Toshiba was their partner back then because the idea was to put it into TVs and other stuff, they actually had a cool demo of that and I think one or two Toshiba TVs might have gone to market. IBM put out a Cell blade or two but no one ever iterated on the architecture. It was a huge flop built around Kutaragi, riding high on PS1 and PS2, thinking The Matrix was cool and he paid the price. There was also the GS Cube or whatever it was called(please help me remember the name) that proved that multiprocessing was viable.

That doesn't mean the announcement and endeavor was a fools errand and I think Sun(relevant at the time) was the ones doing a "hey guys, we are also making a thing like that".
Click to expand...
I have mentioned this before so I may reiterate points I made in post a couple of months ago.

IBM made a line of Cell blades, hybrid Operton-Cell racks, and did their due diligence trying to get scientific computing and enterprise on board. I'm speaking from my work experience that there were some interested parties but the applications where Cell could exceed were limited to a few fields and companies didn't want to deal with the labor cost of changing code around to be Cell oriented. Cell is notoriously programmer unfriendly. IBM needed a software library to make programming the processor easily, that would of been OpenCL but OpenCL was a year too late. IBM did a lot for Cell in their field but it wasn't enough to pay for the architecture; Sony and Toshiba were on the hook for consumer electronics and computing. When Sony was shown the door trying to pitch Cell to Apple, that should of been a good sign that there was trouble for Cell based consumer electronics. IBM wrote compilers for the PS3 and provided the North American documentation (eventually) when Sony only had Japanese instructions for their dev kits. The PS3 developer wiki has a lot of PDF links to IBM's software. In fact all the technical documentation on that wiki for Cell originates from IBM.

Multi-threaded processing for games may have been viable but Cell wasn't. Jonathan Blow was in a podcast I linked earlier (not reposting it), he was working as a contractor for IBM trying to make a game demo using Cell blades for a physics based game. Blow and his partner had a hard time working with the architecture and ended up risking their careers telling IBM that the processor wasn't going to be good for games; he mentioned in the podcast that IBM was not happy with their conclusions. Just a little background on Blow, he ported DOOM to a Silicon Graphics set top box in the mid-90s, he is a competent game developer.

Cell was doomed because arrogant companies made it. It was representative of the time when semiconductor companies like Intel and AMD thought programmers could figure out multi-threaded programming out on their own, its taken a while for them to get around to it. You need software tied in when you develop a chip or you are designing architecture for no one. However Cell's failure may be responsible for open design groups on processors like RISC-V and generous licensing like ARM.
 
ellroy said:
Cell was doomed because arrogant companies made it. It was representative of the time when semiconductor companies like Intel and AMD thought programmers could figure out multi-threaded programming out on their own, its taken a while for them to get around to it. You need software tied in when you develop a chip or you are designing architecture for no one. However Cell's failure may be responsible for open design groups on processors like RISC-V and generous licensing like ARM.
Click to expand...
So basically, everybody else learned from Sony's costly mistake...though maybe not Sony themselves.
 
It didn't help matters that Cell came out around a time everyone and their cat was embracing PowerPC.
 
The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
So basically, everybody else learned from Sony's costly mistake...though maybe not Sony themselves.
Click to expand...

Sony did, it's why Kutaragi was forced into retirement and got Cerny as the lead for the PS4 and 5. For how obtuse how Japanese hardware companies can be, it had to take a lot of crow eating to swing that hard that fast and make them go with an American.
 
The cinematic trailer that was used in major city promotions like Times Square was done by another studio I think, it looks outsourced. Because it's not the same Aloy model as the in game one.

It's like Rikku changing her appearance in every other scene like in Final Fantasy 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom