DirectX sh*t > PS2 ???

http://pc.ign.com/articles/501/501368p1.html

IGN: But if you make it easier for triple-A titles to make it to shelves, isn\'t there a potential to muddy the market as more money gets spent on marketing?

J Allard: I don\'t know that that\'s necessarily the case; production costs aren\'t going to ceiling out as a result of better software. Dean was talking about advances in power and sophistication in hardware, that power and sophistication means more complexity. With each successive generation, we\'ve utilized the hardware less and less.

Look at the first generation PS2 games. They were using 40% of the hardware on Day One. We don\'t want that to be the case. Look at the new 007 games. Gamers want Hollywood talent in their games. Look at online games like Rainbow Six. People want competitive and collaborative multiplayer with voice in every one of my games. Look at the visual quality in Halo and the depth of story in Half-Life 2; gamers want those as well.

What we\'re not saying is that people are going to spend less money on games. What we think is going to happen is that less of the money, time and energy are going to be on the basic and fundamentals of getting the game to work and getting a pipeline up. There\'s so much opportunity -- be it high-def gaming, online gaming, character development, story development, free design -- that it mandates we spend more time in design. What\'s happening today is that more time in design is turning two-year projects into four-year projects. What we want to do is make the first eighteen months of today\'s projects as close to free as possible so that the design time and design expense is put into the stuff that matters.

What would a Direct X supporter know about PS2????Especially the head man for Microsoft\'s Windows Gaming Group??????
This guy is stupid.If there is one thing that is a step back when it comes to evolution in programming and extending knowledge and skill its the Direct X thing.
Its funny that developers complained that they didnt know much about the Hardware in the first generation of PS2\'s games.How could they reach 40% so fast?The first Performance Analyzewr showet that on PS1 Tekken 2 used only around 30-40% of its power.And PS1 was easier to develop on.
PC game developers find everything ready.They only know what "this tool does" and "what that tool does".They never experiment with the hardware.

If you\'re a PSX programmer and then you\'re a PS2 programmer, holy crap, you have to throw away all your code and everything you knew and go from 95% effective utilization of hardware to 40%. That\'s why the first generation games didn\'t look so good. They looked like great PSX games.

Thats the whole point.And what do the first gen games mean if developers get used to the hardware and develop superb titles for the next generation and also become familiar with a hardware architrecture that can be used in the future??Thats no longer an issue since back then it was something new.It was expected
We also got various titles each showing different uses of the heardware and techniques.
I didnt know the guy programmed on PS2 and tried the performance analyzer either

I don\'t know how anyone can read that interview and think they are wrong. They make absolute sense. It is not an Xbox vs. PS2 thing. Its about making console development easier and cheaper all around.

I\'m all for it. If what they are trying to do opens up development to more/smaller talent then it is nothing but beneficial to gamers.

I like the analogy J.Allard used.

IGN: Let me clarify. In your quest to develop XNA as a standard, you\'re not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach. You\'re allowing developers to choose a suite of tools?

J Allard: Yeah, you\'re my general contractor and we\'re building a house together. What do you do? You go down to Sears and you buy a Stanley hammer, a Black and Decker saw, you\'re gonna buy a MAKITA drill, you\'re gonna mix and match tools that are appropriate for you. When you walk out the door, hopefully you don\'t have to make another trip. If you\'re remodeling the kitchen instead of building a new house you\'ll make a different set of selections; your budget is different and the scale of your team might be different. Every GC\'s trip to Sears looks a little different but Sears arranges everything on pegs and you\'re guaranteed that your power tools will all work in a three-prong outlet. There are standards in terms of nails and hammers and weights and gauges that allow interoperability between the guys that make the screws and the guys that make the screwdrivers.

If the three of us want to make a game, where\'s Sears? There isn\'t. We send you out to the Black and Decker store, and Dean to the Makita store and I go to the Craftsmen store. When we come back, hopefully, we have enough stuff to build the house but we\'ll probably have to make a few return trips. And then none of the stuff plugs into the same outlets. We have to rewire the freaking house before we even start to remodel. That\'s what game development is like today.

Originally posted by Unicron!
If there is one thing that is a step back when it comes to evolution in programming and extending knowledge and skill its the Direct X thing.

So are you saying that PC gaming would be better off if developers had to learn a new development architecture for every new video card that came out?

Originally posted by Unicron!
PC game developers find everything ready.They only know what "this tool does" and "what that tool does".They never experiment with the hardware.

This is bad? If I need a physics engine for my game is it better for me to waste time/money to develop one or use a premade one that does everything that I need perfectly?

http://media.xbox.ign.com/articles/501/501621/vids_1.html

You know, it is possible to put that into ONE friggin reply, without the double (let alone triple) post.

His analogy is wrong anyways.  He said "go to the makita store, black and decker store, and craftsman store" rather than finding those tools all together at the same store.  The point is you don\'t go to the same tools at all with PS2, you go to a specialty drill store, specialty hammer store, etc, and each of the individual tools you make would be better than the generic find-em-at sears (directx) brands.

Black Samurai:They can develop tools based on programming  the hardware as well as experimenting with it.Then distribute the tools.Prgramers gain knowledge and can get more out of the hardware capabilitites when they cet used to it.They also extend their knowledge.They can do more than what the tools let them.How many PC games reach the total specs and performance of 3D acceleration graphics cards shown on paper?None probably?Developers with Direct X do only what the tools enable them to do.
Actually its what FatalXception said.

Originally posted by FatalXception
You know, it is possible to put that into ONE friggin reply, without the double (let alone triple) post.

Really?!?!? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by FatalXception
His analogy is wrong anyways.  He said "go to the makita store, black and decker store, and craftsman store" rather than finding those tools all together at the same store.  The point is you don\'t go to the same tools at all with PS2, you go to a specialty drill store, specialty hammer store, etc, and each of the individual tools you make would be better than the generic find-em-at sears (directx) brands.

You really don\'t understand. You should read the article.

It\'s not about avoiding going to one store. It\'s about knowing what tools you need for the job and going to get tools, that you already KNOW can do what you want, as opposed to knowing what tools you need and having to build them all yourself and having to waste time making sure they do what you want.

Originally posted by Unicron!
Black Samurai: They can develop tools based on programming  the hardware as well as experimenting with it. Then distribute the tools. Programers gain knowledge and can get more out of the hardware capabilitites when they get used to it.They also extend their knowledge.They can do more than what the tools let them.

Think about what you are saying. Do you really think it is better for game development when a company has to waste months of development and millions of dollars to "experiment". If there was a standard we could be playing fourth/fifth generation games when a console launches. Why? Because there was no need for experimenting, they knew the system because it was the same architecture and development environment as all the previous consoles they worked on.

Originally posted by Unicron!
How many PC games reach the total specs and performance of 3D acceleration graphics cards shown on paper?None probably? Developers with Direct X do only what the tools enable them to do.

PC Developers have to design their games to work on as many rigs as possible. If they could say f*ck it lets work for the best PCs out there PC games would look even better than they do now. That is why this is so good for Console developers.

Standard development architecture WITH a standard hardware layout is incredible. Do you know how many good games we\'ll see in a shorter timespan and from more varied developers? Something like this would mean more and maybe even cheaper games.

Quit double posting, you spammer!

Anyways, I understand the beauty of set software tools, and hardware, but the problem is that you have nowhere to go.  Very minor tweaks may be made, but really, there will be no major improvement with each generation.

The PS3\'s hardware will be constant, so that isn\'t a detriment, but the software guys will make more and more impressive leaps in their tools, eventually surpassing any pre-set static tools you have.  Look at GT4, and what\'s it\'s getting out of the PS2\'s hardware.

Originally posted by FatalXception
Anyways, I understand the beauty of set software tools, and hardware, but the problem is that you have nowhere to go.  Very minor tweaks may be made, but really, there will be no major improvement with each generation.

The PS3\'s hardware will be constant, so that isn\'t a detriment, but the software guys will make more and more impressive leaps in their tools, eventually surpassing any pre-set static tools you have. Look at GT4, and what\'s it\'s getting out of the PS2\'s hardware.

Nowadays there are no major improvements besides graphics.

Plus, There are people who do nothing BUT work on physics and AI engines. Nothing else. There is almost nothing that a console developer would need that hasn\'t already been made in some capacity and if they do, for some reason, need something else they can ADD to the pre-existing engine. Any new advances would come from developers building on already established platforms. This alone would shave MONTHS of development time. How much time is wasted on fixing little bugs that could have been spent on improving and innovating gameplay experiences?

tihs proovs microwesoft will 0wn sony buy teh end of the mnth

Err....was there any valid argument at all in this thread????

Making a standard tools is good for everyone. Do you want a 5 year development cycle for each game?? By the time the game came out, it\'s time for the next gen console!!! (not to metion the rising development cost...which the consumers will have to bear eventually...do you want to pay 99 dollars or 49 dollars for a game??)

And yes, indeed Direct X "shit" is > PS2.

PS2 is like a GF2(DX7) with higher poly count and much lower texture.

DX really rocks. It provides a backward compatible platform for developers to work and add new features and functions for each generation. What\'s wrong with that!!!!!

And usually by the 3rd year of a console life span, the graphics improvement will have stale...like the PS2 now..(GT4 is nice, but is hardly any different from GT3).

I only want one house, but I want a lot of (different) games. microsoft is trying to ruine that!!!

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Think about what you are saying. Do you really think it is better for game development when a company has to waste months of development and millions of dollars to "experiment". If there was a standard we could be playing fourth/fifth generation games when a console launches. Why? Because there was no need for experimenting, they knew the system because it was the same architecture and development environment as all the previous consoles they worked on.

No.I dont think its better.But Direct X isnt letting developers program directly to the metal.Developers that stand out have the chance to do just that.Many tools are being created and can be distributed among developers or even by Sony.Something similar to the direct X can happen with acrhitecture like the PS2.The developers can choose a variety of tools or if they have the money program directly to the heardware(big developers that can stand out).There is a variety of tools on PS2 already.Its just that this was the first time developers program on such an architecture.It is self evident that for PS2 these problems were unavoidable

PC Developers have to design their games to work on as many rigs as possible. If they could say f*ck it lets work for the best PCs out there PC games would look even better than they do now. That is why this is so good for Console developers.

Ahm....comparing PCs with console when it comes to developer\'s choice of hardware is kind of awkward.

Standard development architecture WITH a standard hardware layout is incredible. Do you know how many good games we\'ll see in a shorter timespan and from more varied developers? Something like this would mean more and maybe even cheaper games. [/B]

As I said PS2 introduced a new method.Its needs time to evolve.If developers continue to support this kind of architecture and programming you ll start seeing the difference I am talking about.
The only reason why you see such a difference in PCs is becuase the evolve fast when it comes to hardware.Faster than what games on PCs seem to show you.You think its the Direct X that does the biggest difference?No.Its the hardware.And most of it is left untapped.

Originally posted by Paul
Err....was there any valid argument at all in this thread????

Making a standard tools is good for everyone. Do you want a 5 year development cycle for each game?? By the time the game came out, it\'s time for the next gen console!!! (not to metion the rising development cost...which the consumers will have to bear eventually...do you want to pay 99 dollars or 49 dollars for a game??)

Thats only the risk paid when you introduce something new

And yes, indeed Direct X "shit" is > PS2.

PS2 is like a GF2(DX7) with higher poly count and much lower texture.

DX really rocks. It provides a backward compatible platform for developers to work and add new features and functions for each generation. What\'s wrong with that!!!!!

And usually by the 3rd year of a console life span, the graphics improvement will have stale...like the PS2 now..(GT4 is nice, but is hardly any different from GT3). [/B]

Do you like Burnout3 sunshine?Thank Middleware.How many racing games on XBOX look as good as Burnout3 or GT4?And XBOX is using Directx tools, on a GF2?Now whats wrong with that?
Its funny that developing on PS2 helped the appearance of a variety of visuals on XBOX when its titles became multiplatform
And thats just the beginning.A new start is always hard.Developers have been accustomed to Direct X  for more than a decade.And yet comparing XBOX de direct X GF2 super console(appeared late 2001), with what PS2 has offered (harwdware released in 1999) isnt the huge gap you make it seem to be.

This is like trying to teach a monkey to sing.

I don\'t think YOU even know what you are talking about. I\'m sure PS2 developers LOVE doing assembly code for minimal results. I bet they can\'t wait for a new console to launch so they can spend 2-3 years experimenting with what a system can do and forgetting everything they spent the last 5 years learning.