Should Sony stick too streaming?

For the next playstation, what do you guys(or girls) think? Should sony stick to the way they built the PS2 with streaming or should they go back to the more common PC way?

The best thing to do is see how things progress. I believe that sony have done this with the PS2 to test the water
if you like. Don\'t get me wrong i love my PS2 and hats off to Sony for taking a risk and being innovative, but like i said,
i believe the PS2 to be a testing period. Give it a couple of years and then ask yourself the same question.

Honestly, i can\'t say what i\'d prefer but it\'s still early days. let the killer apps roll out 1st and see what
differences there are with conversions on the X-box & Cube. This is an open minded view and in all honesty
i\'m sick of the slagging matches that can occur from all parties. I like the PS2, i like my PC
i might like both the X-box & Gamecube but we will see.

Give it some time people and give credit where it\'s due.
life isn\'t all about games, there is so much more going on around us all.

They have already confirmed that PS3 is a streaming console (I think..)

Its the way of the future
Or so the experts says.

For the sake of avoiding angry spamming, let\'s avoid any "PS3 is or PS3 confirmed"  talk.  Everything PS3 related is speculation or rumor.  I know the information we are hearing about PS3 is coming from legitimate sources, but the fact of the matter is, the infomation is from blueprints, and blueprints change all the time.  So we should be careful to phrase everything "PS3 should."

From a programming student\'s perspective, I must first say that streaming is mana from heaven for users of the final product, when used to its upmost ability, but to me streaming is the one part of programming that I loathe!  When programming for streaming information, there are no permanent variables.  This makes it very hard to "trace" code, which is an essential skill of the programmer.  Basically, when we add streaming, we add in about 15 more things to think about when writing code, including "is the stream open or closed at this point," "what kind of information is coming through the stream when i do this," and "how much will the program slow down if I close the stream temporarily here, should I close it somewhere else?"

Phew, when I get a job, I\'m gonna steer clear of PS for the moment!

I don\'t think there is anything wrong with they way they make their consoles but I would suggest they just provide simple tools for developers and they would be in a better position.  I don\'t think they are going to make the same mistake twice.

Sony knows what they are doing, they always creates the future.
The PS2 and PS3 will be groundbreaking and a star for otherrs to follow.

What\'s a streaming console?  Do they only stream textures or something else, too?

I dont care, simple cuz, all elecronic systems stream data, the only diference is that the PS2 streams it faster than anything else (in terms of porportion comparing 4Mb of Vram from the PS2 to 4Mb of the unifyed ram from Xbox) the PS2 would stream faster, but since Xbox has more mem, it doenst need high speed like 4Mb vram sync@ clock frequency with the EE.

I dunno whats the timelenght of 1 clock cycle of the EE(nanoseconds!!!), and how much bits(128/2= 64bits I/O? i guess since the system is all 128 bits) can it stream peer clock, supposing it can stream 2*64 I/O, its simple, multiply the number of bits per clock by the frequency that the EE is runing at(146.7mhz? 150 ok) and wwe get the bandwith that the VRam can stream, but since it has to "upstream" and "downdtream" (i mean it has to write, since data its being constantly altered) data, it depends, but divided it by 2, and we get the amount of mem we can see on screen.

(This is only my "calculations" based on what i read and learn)

For a more simple example, take sdram at 100mhz, shure it has a 100mhz bandwith frequency, but it has to write and erase data constantly, so by theory it only uses half th bandwith to Write and erase data. (It may suffer sligh changes)

ppffffeeuu.... im of to chew something, hmmm cake....:d

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason developers are streaming is because 4mb of Vram is not enough for today’s games. So they stream. If Sony got a PS2 with 32 mb of Vram would we even have this conversation? I think necessity brought streaming to the masses.  IMO.

hell even with 32mb of Vram or whatever streaming would still prove superior


So IMO SOny should pack the nxt meachine with alot more ram to avoind the early pitfalls, and then we\'ll see lower dev\'s putting out some nicer looking and playing games, but we will still see  top dev\'s who are proficient in data streaming taking games to a higher level still


SO Yes Streaming will always be essential, but Sony shouldn\'t handcuff the dev community by forcing the issue as much as they have with the PS2

I also would be more then willing to pay $350.00 for a console packed with RAM and other dev friendly components coupled with state of the art technology

but that may be just me

So far, which game that is out already and the still underdevelopment had use the streaming method?
I doubt ffx tap much out of ps2 and even bother using streaming method ye.  people claim ffx have high texture and it was stream but I think the texture is not from streaming.  In some area, ffx seems to have high texture while other look bland and blurry.  I think GT3 nicer streaming.  Jax and Dexter texture looks like it was stream

[Evi]

Originally posted by know-it-all-wanna-be
So far, which game that is out already and the still underdevelopment had use the streaming method?
I doubt ffx tap much out of ps2 and even bother using streaming method ye.  people claim ffx have high texture and it was stream but I think the texture is not from streaming.  In some area, ffx seems to have high texture while other look bland and blurry.  I think GT3 nicer streaming.  Jax and Dexter texture looks like it was stream

What country are you form dude?? :hold: And also...Jax and Daxter is definitely using the streaming method...goody-goody-gumdrops...

I would say all of the PS2\'s TOP games are using streaming
methods

4mb of textures gets used up extremely fast.

Streaming is a very very useful and necessary in console game design, but handcuffing devs the way the PS2 has done early  on is a little too extreme.

On the up side PS2 dev\'s will have a stronger grasp of streaming techniques and will get better at it. It will only improve  there capabilities later this gen and the next even if there\'s a boat load of ram in the PS3

[Evi]

Originally posted by ddaryl
I would say all of the PS2\'s TOP games are using streaming
methods

4mb of textures gets used up extremely fast.

Streaming is a very very useful and necessary in console game design, but handcuffing devs the way the PS2 has done early  on is a little too extreme.

On the up side PS2 dev\'s will have a stronger grasp of streaming techniques and will get better at it. It will only improve  there capabilities later this gen and the next even if there\'s a boat load of ram in the PS3

PS2 is pretty dang powerful. Streaming is way better...in my opinion. Games are just looking better and better.

I could be wrong, but I thought the reason PS2 had only 4mb\'s of ram was because it was designed to stream, hence the higher band width and everything.  It probably would have cost to much to put in alot of ram and design the chip the way they did.  But I think the whole point of this style of chip design was that they could get more power by using the current technology in a different, more effecient way then say, the standard PC. The PS2 was a larger step than usual in the technology curve, I remember when the chip was anounced people were expecting 7-8 million poly theoreticle value tops, then Sony anounced something like 65 million theoreticle value.  Again, I could be wrong so feel free to point it out if I am, just what I picked up from techies I know as well as stories I\'ve read.