The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Microsoft Targeting MGS4 and Final Fantasy?

1457910

Posts

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sonos wrote: »
    Zek wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.

    Alright, here it is. What Konami wants, and what is actually fucking possible are two completely different things. We all know that MGS4 was built from the ground up entirely dependent on the Cell's architecture and RSX. To port it to the 360 would be akin to shoving the triangle peg into the circle slot from a completely different toy. It's not about power of the individual systems, it's about the massive disparity between the way the two of them operate. The Cell is based around very new and innovative technology, where as the Xenos (if that's the CPU) is based off older technology. Conversely, the RSX is older technology, whereas the Xenon (if that's the GPU) is very new and innovative. They are so drastically different in architecture without that massive gap between overall power that you couldn't just muscle it out. Win or lose, MGS4 is on the PS3 and will not see the 360 until they take the time, effort, and money to completely rebuild the entire game for the 360 or in a way that would lend itself to multiple platforms. As of yet, they've done neither, and it's a far cry from likely that it would be at all cost effective to do so.

    So why is it impossible for MGS4 and no problem for DMC4?

    owned in the fucking face.
    Or you know, I explained that part in my post that the engine was designed to work that way.
    Where as the MGS series is typically built from the ground up around the Playstation.
    Which is why the MGS2 port that horride frame rate issues.

    It would be more difficult where as with DMC it's a much simplier process.
    MGS2 was a bad port. That is not an absolute statement of all MGS ports being shitty; it just means that they handled THAT particular port poorly. Just fixing how the rain was drawn would have fixed so many problems... but they were too lazy to do even that.

    If a 360 version of MGS4 were to come, I suspect the same mistake would not happen twice from Kojima.

    What, do you think it was a bad port because they didn't fucking try? It was a bad port because it took advantage of the PS2's hardware in a way that made it entirely dependent on the PS2. Since day one, MGS4 has been developed with the same ideology. Build it entirely dependent on all the assets of a given system to get the absolute most quality.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I say that 'twere it a kiss, my love.

    Is that right? Can I contract "if it were" as "'twere"?

    No. Also, you need an 'as' in there somewhere.
    OK, that time was just to piss Resident0 off. :)

    You're right.

    Ranced: are you...just joking or something?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sonos wrote: »
    Zek wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.

    Alright, here it is. What Konami wants, and what is actually fucking possible are two completely different things. We all know that MGS4 was built from the ground up entirely dependent on the Cell's architecture and RSX. To port it to the 360 would be akin to shoving the triangle peg into the circle slot from a completely different toy. It's not about power of the individual systems, it's about the massive disparity between the way the two of them operate. The Cell is based around very new and innovative technology, where as the Xenos (if that's the CPU) is based off older technology. Conversely, the RSX is older technology, whereas the Xenon (if that's the GPU) is very new and innovative. They are so drastically different in architecture without that massive gap between overall power that you couldn't just muscle it out. Win or lose, MGS4 is on the PS3 and will not see the 360 until they take the time, effort, and money to completely rebuild the entire game for the 360 or in a way that would lend itself to multiple platforms. As of yet, they've done neither, and it's a far cry from likely that it would be at all cost effective to do so.

    So why is it impossible for MGS4 and no problem for DMC4?

    owned in the fucking face.
    Or you know, I explained that part in my post that the engine was designed to work that way.
    Where as the MGS series is typically built from the ground up around the Playstation.
    Which is why the MGS2 port that horride frame rate issues.

    It would be more difficult where as with DMC it's a much simplier process.
    MGS2 was a bad port. That is not an absolute statement of all MGS ports being shitty; it just means that they handled THAT particular port poorly. Just fixing how the rain was drawn would have fixed so many problems... but they were too lazy to do even that.

    If a 360 version of MGS4 were to come, I suspect the same mistake would not happen twice from Kojima.

    What, do you think it was a bad port because they didn't fucking try?

    Yes.

    Couscous on
  • Resident0Resident0 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sonos wrote: »
    Zek wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.

    Alright, here it is. What Konami wants, and what is actually fucking possible are two completely different things. We all know that MGS4 was built from the ground up entirely dependent on the Cell's architecture and RSX. To port it to the 360 would be akin to shoving the triangle peg into the circle slot from a completely different toy. It's not about power of the individual systems, it's about the massive disparity between the way the two of them operate. The Cell is based around very new and innovative technology, where as the Xenos (if that's the CPU) is based off older technology. Conversely, the RSX is older technology, whereas the Xenon (if that's the GPU) is very new and innovative. They are so drastically different in architecture without that massive gap between overall power that you couldn't just muscle it out. Win or lose, MGS4 is on the PS3 and will not see the 360 until they take the time, effort, and money to completely rebuild the entire game for the 360 or in a way that would lend itself to multiple platforms. As of yet, they've done neither, and it's a far cry from likely that it would be at all cost effective to do so.

    So why is it impossible for MGS4 and no problem for DMC4?

    owned in the fucking face.
    Or you know, I explained that part in my post that the engine was designed to work that way.
    Where as the MGS series is typically built from the ground up around the Playstation.
    Which is why the MGS2 port that horride frame rate issues.

    It would be more difficult where as with DMC it's a much simplier process.
    MGS2 was a bad port. That is not an absolute statement of all MGS ports being shitty; it just means that they handled THAT particular port poorly. Just fixing how the rain was drawn would have fixed so many problems... but they were too lazy to do even that.

    If a 360 version of MGS4 were to come, I suspect the same mistake would not happen twice from Kojima.

    What, do you think it was a bad port because they didn't fucking try? It was a bad port because it took advantage of the PS2's hardware in a way that made it entirely dependent on the PS2. Since day one, MGS4 has been developed with the same ideology. Build it entirely dependent on all the assets of a given system to get the absolute most quality.

    How do you explain DS/PSP shovelware then?

    Resident0 on
    sig.gif
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    So, the PS3, I hear it has two games....

    LewieP on
  • RancedRanced Default Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    MGS2 for the Xbox was a bad port?

    The only slowdown in the game was in the rainy area of the ship in the beginning. Even then, it only dropped to around 20 fps and was consistent.

    That makes it a bad port?

    Ranced on
  • JJJJ DailyStormer Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Resident0 wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sonos wrote: »
    Zek wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.

    Alright, here it is. What Konami wants, and what is actually fucking possible are two completely different things. We all know that MGS4 was built from the ground up entirely dependent on the Cell's architecture and RSX. To port it to the 360 would be akin to shoving the triangle peg into the circle slot from a completely different toy. It's not about power of the individual systems, it's about the massive disparity between the way the two of them operate. The Cell is based around very new and innovative technology, where as the Xenos (if that's the CPU) is based off older technology. Conversely, the RSX is older technology, whereas the Xenon (if that's the GPU) is very new and innovative. They are so drastically different in architecture without that massive gap between overall power that you couldn't just muscle it out. Win or lose, MGS4 is on the PS3 and will not see the 360 until they take the time, effort, and money to completely rebuild the entire game for the 360 or in a way that would lend itself to multiple platforms. As of yet, they've done neither, and it's a far cry from likely that it would be at all cost effective to do so.

    So why is it impossible for MGS4 and no problem for DMC4?

    owned in the fucking face.
    Or you know, I explained that part in my post that the engine was designed to work that way.
    Where as the MGS series is typically built from the ground up around the Playstation.
    Which is why the MGS2 port that horride frame rate issues.

    It would be more difficult where as with DMC it's a much simplier process.
    MGS2 was a bad port. That is not an absolute statement of all MGS ports being shitty; it just means that they handled THAT particular port poorly. Just fixing how the rain was drawn would have fixed so many problems... but they were too lazy to do even that.

    If a 360 version of MGS4 were to come, I suspect the same mistake would not happen twice from Kojima.

    What, do you think it was a bad port because they didn't fucking try? It was a bad port because it took advantage of the PS2's hardware in a way that made it entirely dependent on the PS2. Since day one, MGS4 has been developed with the same ideology. Build it entirely dependent on all the assets of a given system to get the absolute most quality.

    How do you explain DS/PSP shovelware then?

    Becasue it's shovelware?

    JJ on
  • Resident0Resident0 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    LewieP wrote: »
    So, the PS3, I hear it has two games....

    IT HAS THREE BITCH.

    Resident0 on
    sig.gif
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Ranced wrote: »
    MGS2 for the Xbox was a bad port?

    The only slowdown in the game was in the rainy area of the ship in the beginning. Even then, it only dropped to around 20 fps and was consistent.

    That makes it a bad port?

    It was the worst port EVAR. Even worse than Grandia II to the PS2.

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • RancedRanced Default Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    t drez

    yea

    Ranced on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Resident0 wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    So, the PS3, I hear it has two games....

    IT HAS THREE BITCH.

    haha, was just trying to lighten the mood with a tongue in cheek dig at the sony.

    LewieP on
  • bongibongi regular
    edited March 2007
    i think probably the people saying "the architectures are so different as to make it impossible" and the people saying "no the libraries make it easy" are both probably over-generalising bits

    most likely, there are bits which are very easy due to shared tools and there are bits which are pretty difficult because of architectural discrepancies

    bongi on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ranced: k, that's what I thought :)

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I love how everyone tries to say that the CPUs between the two platforms are massively different chips.

    At the core, both of them are 3.2 GHz Power PC chips, using the EXACT same instruction sets to accomplish their tasks. What differs is how they multithread. The 360 has 3 multithreaded cores (all of which are identical to the one primary Cell CPU), and the cell has six functioning SPEs, which act as fast but reduced function processors.

    You can delegate all the routines the SPEs are handling to the other cores on the 360 and aside from some optimization of code, not have to change much of anything.


    Furthermore, very few (if any) programmers work on the metal anymore. It's a pointless endeavor, and has been for some time. I doubt a lick of ASM has been used to create MGS4, and porting C code between platforms is a task not seated in the realm of impossibility.

    The big kicker is that the three cores on the 360, while being doubled up, can each only perform one task at any given time. The Cell has the six entirely independent cores and the seventh for whatever the hell else it's used for, I forget. 360 = three tasks simultaneously going twice as fast as the Cell cores, PS3 = six tasks simultaneously going half as fast at the Xeno(n,s; I can't ever remember which one is which, as you might can tell). MGS4 has been designed specifically to take advantage of the six independent cores, porting it to the 360 would be difficult to say the least. They'd have to completely change the way the engine allocates things.
    And god knows my single core desktop at work can't do more than one thing at a.... WAIT A MINUTE!

    That's because PC CPUs are drastically different than console CPU's. Try not to be a smart ass if you don't know jack shit, ever wonder why a PC multi-core CPU costs more than a PS3 itself? Gee, I wonder how the fuck they afford that, numbnuts.
    Wow, color me impressed.

    Are you telling me that console CPUs are different from PC CPUs in that console CPUs are short-bus chips that are incapable of multitasking? That you cannot delegate thread priority and usage restrictions on processes? Do you really, truly believe that Shadow of the colossus ran on one thread?


    edit: as for processor costs in relation to consoles... economy of scale plays a huge part.

    No, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I need somebody to come in and shut you the fuck up because I can't remember the technical details about the differences between console CPUs and PC CPUs. I know that console CPUs run threads in a completely linear fashion, and that PC CPUs don't, but I can't remember the technicaly aspect.

    Fuck, I'm just a god damned psych major.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • KamiKami Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Honestly, it's very easy to port Devil May Cry 4 over to the 360, for the same reason it was easy to port Assassin's Creed:

    It was never an exclusive to begin with. A timed exclusive, maybe, but not a bonafide one-system exclusive.

    Kami on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    edited March 2007
    bongi wrote: »
    i think probably the people saying "the architectures are so different as to make it impossible" and the people saying "no the libraries make it easy" are both probably over-generalising bits

    most likely, there are bits which are very easy due to shared tools and there are bits which are pretty difficult because of architectural discrepancies
    I am by no means saying it's going to be a cakewalk; just that it's not impossible, and not outside the arena of being very profitable to do so.... unless sony offers a big enough moneyhat to convince them otherwise.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Sonos wrote: »
    Zek wrote: »
    Jesus Christ.

    Alright, here it is. What Konami wants, and what is actually fucking possible are two completely different things. We all know that MGS4 was built from the ground up entirely dependent on the Cell's architecture and RSX. To port it to the 360 would be akin to shoving the triangle peg into the circle slot from a completely different toy. It's not about power of the individual systems, it's about the massive disparity between the way the two of them operate. The Cell is based around very new and innovative technology, where as the Xenos (if that's the CPU) is based off older technology. Conversely, the RSX is older technology, whereas the Xenon (if that's the GPU) is very new and innovative. They are so drastically different in architecture without that massive gap between overall power that you couldn't just muscle it out. Win or lose, MGS4 is on the PS3 and will not see the 360 until they take the time, effort, and money to completely rebuild the entire game for the 360 or in a way that would lend itself to multiple platforms. As of yet, they've done neither, and it's a far cry from likely that it would be at all cost effective to do so.

    So why is it impossible for MGS4 and no problem for DMC4?

    owned in the fucking face.
    Or you know, I explained that part in my post that the engine was designed to work that way.
    Where as the MGS series is typically built from the ground up around the Playstation.
    Which is why the MGS2 port that horride frame rate issues.

    It would be more difficult where as with DMC it's a much simplier process.
    MGS2 was a bad port. That is not an absolute statement of all MGS ports being shitty; it just means that they handled THAT particular port poorly. Just fixing how the rain was drawn would have fixed so many problems... but they were too lazy to do even that.

    If a 360 version of MGS4 were to come, I suspect the same mistake would not happen twice from Kojima.

    What, do you think it was a bad port because they didn't fucking try?

    Yes.

    Example: RE4 was ported down to PS2, and they did a fantastic job.

    When ported to the PC, they did a sloppy fucking job and it turned out like shit.

    In one situation there was concerted effort, in the other there wasn't.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I love how everyone tries to say that the CPUs between the two platforms are massively different chips.

    At the core, both of them are 3.2 GHz Power PC chips, using the EXACT same instruction sets to accomplish their tasks. What differs is how they multithread. The 360 has 3 multithreaded cores (all of which are identical to the one primary Cell CPU), and the cell has six functioning SPEs, which act as fast but reduced function processors.

    You can delegate all the routines the SPEs are handling to the other cores on the 360 and aside from some optimization of code, not have to change much of anything.


    Furthermore, very few (if any) programmers work on the metal anymore. It's a pointless endeavor, and has been for some time. I doubt a lick of ASM has been used to create MGS4, and porting C code between platforms is a task not seated in the realm of impossibility.

    The big kicker is that the three cores on the 360, while being doubled up, can each only perform one task at any given time. The Cell has the six entirely independent cores and the seventh for whatever the hell else it's used for, I forget. 360 = three tasks simultaneously going twice as fast as the Cell cores, PS3 = six tasks simultaneously going half as fast at the Xeno(n,s; I can't ever remember which one is which, as you might can tell). MGS4 has been designed specifically to take advantage of the six independent cores, porting it to the 360 would be difficult to say the least. They'd have to completely change the way the engine allocates things.
    And god knows my single core desktop at work can't do more than one thing at a.... WAIT A MINUTE!

    That's because PC CPUs are drastically different than console CPU's. Try not to be a smart ass if you don't know jack shit, ever wonder why a PC multi-core CPU costs more than a PS3 itself? Gee, I wonder how the fuck they afford that, numbnuts.
    Wow, color me impressed.

    Are you telling me that console CPUs are different from PC CPUs in that console CPUs are short-bus chips that are incapable of multitasking? That you cannot delegate thread priority and usage restrictions on processes? Do you really, truly believe that Shadow of the colossus ran on one thread?


    edit: as for processor costs in relation to consoles... economy of scale plays a huge part.

    No, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I need somebody to come in and shut you the fuck up because I can't remember the technical details about the differences between console CPUs and PC CPUs. I know that console CPUs run threads in a completely linear fashion, and that PC CPUs don't, but I can't remember the technicaly aspect.

    Fuck, I'm just a god damned psych major.

    You're telling someone they don't know what they're talking about... and then you say YOU don't know what you're talking about.

    Hmmmm......

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    The problem exclusivity advertisement no longer works is that gamers and gaming consumers are too smart and have wisened up to the fact that exclusivity is nearly meaningless outside of anything but first-party titles and titles that just don't succeed in the marketplace.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Resident0Resident0 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I love how everyone tries to say that the CPUs between the two platforms are massively different chips.

    At the core, both of them are 3.2 GHz Power PC chips, using the EXACT same instruction sets to accomplish their tasks. What differs is how they multithread. The 360 has 3 multithreaded cores (all of which are identical to the one primary Cell CPU), and the cell has six functioning SPEs, which act as fast but reduced function processors.

    You can delegate all the routines the SPEs are handling to the other cores on the 360 and aside from some optimization of code, not have to change much of anything.


    Furthermore, very few (if any) programmers work on the metal anymore. It's a pointless endeavor, and has been for some time. I doubt a lick of ASM has been used to create MGS4, and porting C code between platforms is a task not seated in the realm of impossibility.

    The big kicker is that the three cores on the 360, while being doubled up, can each only perform one task at any given time. The Cell has the six entirely independent cores and the seventh for whatever the hell else it's used for, I forget. 360 = three tasks simultaneously going twice as fast as the Cell cores, PS3 = six tasks simultaneously going half as fast at the Xeno(n,s; I can't ever remember which one is which, as you might can tell). MGS4 has been designed specifically to take advantage of the six independent cores, porting it to the 360 would be difficult to say the least. They'd have to completely change the way the engine allocates things.
    And god knows my single core desktop at work can't do more than one thing at a.... WAIT A MINUTE!

    That's because PC CPUs are drastically different than console CPU's. Try not to be a smart ass if you don't know jack shit, ever wonder why a PC multi-core CPU costs more than a PS3 itself? Gee, I wonder how the fuck they afford that, numbnuts.
    Wow, color me impressed.

    Are you telling me that console CPUs are different from PC CPUs in that console CPUs are short-bus chips that are incapable of multitasking? That you cannot delegate thread priority and usage restrictions on processes? Do you really, truly believe that Shadow of the colossus ran on one thread?


    edit: as for processor costs in relation to consoles... economy of scale plays a huge part.

    No, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I need somebody to come in and shut you the fuck up because I can't remember the technical details about the differences between console CPUs and PC CPUs. I know that console CPUs run threads in a completely linear fashion, and that PC CPUs don't, but I can't remember the technicaly aspect.

    Fuck, I'm just a god damned psych major.

    Well why dont you just get someone in to shut us the fuck up, set us up the bomb, and prove your knowledge over us?

    The PS3 libraries are open so far as to allow easy porting to other systems, prove me wrong, i'd love it.

    Resident0 on
    sig.gif
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I love how everyone tries to say that the CPUs between the two platforms are massively different chips.

    At the core, both of them are 3.2 GHz Power PC chips, using the EXACT same instruction sets to accomplish their tasks. What differs is how they multithread. The 360 has 3 multithreaded cores (all of which are identical to the one primary Cell CPU), and the cell has six functioning SPEs, which act as fast but reduced function processors.

    You can delegate all the routines the SPEs are handling to the other cores on the 360 and aside from some optimization of code, not have to change much of anything.


    Furthermore, very few (if any) programmers work on the metal anymore. It's a pointless endeavor, and has been for some time. I doubt a lick of ASM has been used to create MGS4, and porting C code between platforms is a task not seated in the realm of impossibility.

    The big kicker is that the three cores on the 360, while being doubled up, can each only perform one task at any given time. The Cell has the six entirely independent cores and the seventh for whatever the hell else it's used for, I forget. 360 = three tasks simultaneously going twice as fast as the Cell cores, PS3 = six tasks simultaneously going half as fast at the Xeno(n,s; I can't ever remember which one is which, as you might can tell). MGS4 has been designed specifically to take advantage of the six independent cores, porting it to the 360 would be difficult to say the least. They'd have to completely change the way the engine allocates things.
    And god knows my single core desktop at work can't do more than one thing at a.... WAIT A MINUTE!

    That's because PC CPUs are drastically different than console CPU's. Try not to be a smart ass if you don't know jack shit, ever wonder why a PC multi-core CPU costs more than a PS3 itself? Gee, I wonder how the fuck they afford that, numbnuts.
    Wow, color me impressed.

    Are you telling me that console CPUs are different from PC CPUs in that console CPUs are short-bus chips that are incapable of multitasking? That you cannot delegate thread priority and usage restrictions on processes? Do you really, truly believe that Shadow of the colossus ran on one thread?


    edit: as for processor costs in relation to consoles... economy of scale plays a huge part.

    No, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I need somebody to come in and shut you the fuck up because I can't remember the technical details about the differences between console CPUs and PC CPUs. I know that console CPUs run threads in a completely linear fashion, and that PC CPUs don't, but I can't remember the technicaly aspect.

    Fuck, I'm just a god damned psych major.
    Wonder_Hippie: You are talking about RISC vs. CISC. While it does make certain tasks act differently (physics, AI, branching prediction), it does not negate multitasking. Hell, a great many high end *nix servers run on RISC tech, and they multitask like a motherfucker. It seems by your own admission you are out of your element here.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Resident0Resident0 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I love how everyone tries to say that the CPUs between the two platforms are massively different chips.

    At the core, both of them are 3.2 GHz Power PC chips, using the EXACT same instruction sets to accomplish their tasks. What differs is how they multithread. The 360 has 3 multithreaded cores (all of which are identical to the one primary Cell CPU), and the cell has six functioning SPEs, which act as fast but reduced function processors.

    You can delegate all the routines the SPEs are handling to the other cores on the 360 and aside from some optimization of code, not have to change much of anything.


    Furthermore, very few (if any) programmers work on the metal anymore. It's a pointless endeavor, and has been for some time. I doubt a lick of ASM has been used to create MGS4, and porting C code between platforms is a task not seated in the realm of impossibility.

    The big kicker is that the three cores on the 360, while being doubled up, can each only perform one task at any given time. The Cell has the six entirely independent cores and the seventh for whatever the hell else it's used for, I forget. 360 = three tasks simultaneously going twice as fast as the Cell cores, PS3 = six tasks simultaneously going half as fast at the Xeno(n,s; I can't ever remember which one is which, as you might can tell). MGS4 has been designed specifically to take advantage of the six independent cores, porting it to the 360 would be difficult to say the least. They'd have to completely change the way the engine allocates things.
    And god knows my single core desktop at work can't do more than one thing at a.... WAIT A MINUTE!

    That's because PC CPUs are drastically different than console CPU's. Try not to be a smart ass if you don't know jack shit, ever wonder why a PC multi-core CPU costs more than a PS3 itself? Gee, I wonder how the fuck they afford that, numbnuts.
    Wow, color me impressed.

    Are you telling me that console CPUs are different from PC CPUs in that console CPUs are short-bus chips that are incapable of multitasking? That you cannot delegate thread priority and usage restrictions on processes? Do you really, truly believe that Shadow of the colossus ran on one thread?


    edit: as for processor costs in relation to consoles... economy of scale plays a huge part.

    No, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I need somebody to come in and shut you the fuck up because I can't remember the technical details about the differences between console CPUs and PC CPUs. I know that console CPUs run threads in a completely linear fashion, and that PC CPUs don't, but I can't remember the technicaly aspect.

    Fuck, I'm just a god damned psych major.
    Wonder_Hippie: You are talking about RISC vs. CISC. While it does make certain tasks act differently (physics, AI, branching prediction), it does not negate multitasking. Hell, a great many high end *nix servers run on RISC tech, and they multitask like a motherfucker. It seems by your own admission you are out of your element here.

    At least Syndalis knows what the fuck he's talking about.

    Welcome to Acorn country! :D

    Resident0 on
    sig.gif
  • bongibongi regular
    edited March 2007
    no, i think he is talking about in order vs. out of order execution but i have no idea what the difference is

    bongi on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=4

    It's in-order v. out-of-order. Just because I didn't know the wording doesn't make me any less correct. Fucking dipshits.

    Edit: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=5

    that's the correct page.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    edited March 2007
    bongi wrote: »
    no, i think he is talking about in order vs. out of order execution but i have no idea what the difference is
    Yeah, the PowerPC Architecture used in all three modern consoles is RISC based, and uses in-order execution, which is a common trait of RISC based architectures.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Well, I certainly don't want an out-of-order console! Though my Xbox 360 did break once.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Resident0Resident0 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=4

    It's in-order v. out-of-order. Just because I didn't know the wording doesn't make me any less correct. Fucking dipshits.

    Edit: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=5

    that's the correct page.

    Dude why do you have such an attitude?

    Resident0 on
    sig.gif
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I could see MGS4 not coming to 360 if it takes a significant investment to make it happen. They might just cut their losses at that point.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Maybe because as soon as I said a verfiable reason that MGS4 will likely not be ported, I was immediately under attack?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    edited March 2007
    I could see MGS4 not coming to 360 if it takes a significant investment to make it happen. They might just cut their losses at that point.
    The number of people who will own BOTH a 360 and a PS3 is very small. Making the game for both platforms puts it in front of two mostly different groups of gamers. Demographically speaking, it would be a lucrative move.

    Coule that with the fact that you would NOT have to redo any of the art assets, level design, scripting or audio... even rebuilding portions of the engine to make this happen would be potentially worth it, so long as Sony isn't throwing a lot of money at them to keep it from happening.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    I could see MGS4 not coming to 360 if it takes a significant investment to make it happen. They might just cut their losses at that point.

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner! An effective port would cost way too much in development, with only a chance at making up the difference in spent/earned, while a shitty port would definitely lose them money. However, it's hard to tell whether or not a quality port is even possible, so it's an extremely risky bid.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    edited March 2007
    Maybe because as soon as I said a verfiable reason that MGS4 will likely not be ported, I was immediately under attack?
    In all fairness, the reason you offered does not actually make that much of a difference, or apply in a meaningful fashion. Furthermore, you do not have the knowledge to back it up.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Kami wrote: »
    Honestly, it's very easy to port Devil May Cry 4 over to the 360, for the same reason it was easy to port Assassin's Creed:

    It was never an exclusive to begin with. A timed exclusive, maybe, but not a bonafide one-system exclusive.

    I don't like the idea of these "timed" exclusives.

    Lets take Assassins Creed as an example. Here you have what looks to be a fantastic game and when it was first announced everyone thought that this game will be the first system seller for the PS3. The guys at Sony are seeing all this buzz and are thinking to themselves, "Yay! Our plan worked!". Then the news comes down that the game is going to be on the 360 as well. What happens next? Gaming sites explode in a frenzy of, "ZOMG SONY LOSES ANOTHER EXCLUSIVE! SONY IS TEH D00MED!" This just adds more fire to the "The PS3 is a failure" mentality.

    Basically, I don't see the advantages in paying a Dev (or publisher) to keep quiet about what systems their game will be on.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Maybe because as soon as I said a verfiable reason that MGS4 will likely not be ported, I was immediately under attack?

    And you know this all how?

    Really.

    PR spin does not technical requirements make.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    Maybe because as soon as I said a verfiable reason that MGS4 will likely not be ported, I was immediately under attack?
    In all fairness, the reason you offered does not actually make that much of a difference, or apply in a meaningful fashion. Furthermore, you do not have the knowledge to back it up.

    You're saying I don't have the knowledge to back it up, but you're bewildered when I tell you that a console proc and PC proc are radically different?

    You know what? Read the fucking article.
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Look, Wonder_Hippie, it is stupid to argue that it is NOT POSSIBLE when the lead designer says "it is possible."
    1UP: With your debut of the Tokyo Game Show Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer, which has seen wide distribution in both Japanese magazines, online, and in the U.S. Official PlayStation Magazine recently, it really heralded the dawn of the next-generation. Everything else has been polished and nice, but this was so powerful, so compelling you even had to do a real-time demonstration at TGS to prove it was running on PS3 hardware. That said, it makes you wonder how much of a gap there is between the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. Do you think you could create MGS4, technically, on 360 if you wanted to?

    Hideo Kojima: Yes, that's technically possible. I want to express, first of all, it's not that I don't like Xbox or 360. It's just that last year, our hands were really tied to MGS3, so the other Konami developers were able to get their hands on the 360 tools and hardware earlier. But we simply didn't have time to do that last year. So, meaning that we were behind the other developers in terms of 360 development. Kojima Productions has this philosophy that we want to be the first in everything regarding new technology. So after we finished MGS3, the option was to work on the PS3 to try all the new things for Metal Gear Solid 4. The only reason for this is I'm the kind of person who wants to be the first person on the moon, and don't want to be asking "what the moon was like?" from other people. So that's the real story behind selecting PS3.

    1UP: It's interesting that you think you could do this on 360, though.

    Hideo Kojima: Maybe some nuance or a small details here and there might be different, but I feel that hardware is no longer a matter. I'm just talking about PS3, 360 and PC. Revolution is totally different, but there are really no differences among the other three.

    There is no discussion here. Kojima has been designing and programming for over twenty years now. It is his franchise. His opinion, here, is impervious. It is infallible. It is unbreakable. You can throw technological proofs and documents and beliefs at this interview and it will not matter. You'd have to convince me that he was outright lying to 1up there, and that's not going to be possible either. He's not wrong. You're wrong.

    There is no more discussion about this. It is possible.

    Whether it actually happens is another matter entirely. Please stop fucking up possible conversation with contrived nonsense that leads nowhere. It is possible. The end.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Kojima wrote:
    Yes, that's technically possible.

    Who was it earlier saying that as soon as you hedge a statement with "technically," you know it's an out-and-out lie?

    Joking aside, when was this interview done? At what stage in the development process had he said this? Either way, by his own admission, he hadn't really had much experience with the 360's hardware, he just immediately jumped on the PS3.

    Also, when did I say it was impossible? Seriously, when? I said it would be insanely difficult, almost insurmountably so, but never impossible. The idea I'm trying to convey is that porting it to the 360 would be an immense gamble because of the costs that would be tied up into actually porting it. This shit ain't magically fucking happening, people have to work to do it, and those people get paid. Whoever's paying them, Microsoft or Konami, stands to lose a shitton of money. Especially if Konami doesn't receive a massive subsidy from Microsoft, considering how little the development companies make off games nowadays.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • slurpeepoopslurpeepoop Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    Maybe because as soon as I said a verfiable reason that MGS4 will likely not be ported, I was immediately under attack?
    In all fairness, the reason you offered does not actually make that much of a difference, or apply in a meaningful fashion. Furthermore, you do not have the knowledge to back it up.

    You're saying I don't have the knowledge to back it up, but you're bewildered when I tell you that a console proc and PC proc are radically different?

    You know what? Read the fucking article.
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

    That article is almost two years old, and IIRC, both the PS3 and the 360 have had revisions to their hardware since the time that article was written.

    This whole argument reminds me of the SNES/Genesis war, where polygons were impossible, certain amounts of color and sprite size were impossible, number of moving objects, CGI-level graphics, speech, etc.

    All impossible on whatever system you weren't arguing for. Programmers went on the record, proving what's possible and impossible on certain systems.

    In the end, they both accomplished the impossible numerous times, and while I'm not a big fan of the MGS series, I feel safe in saying that the 360 could handle a port. So could the Wii.

    If someone could run Doom 3 on SLI'ed Voodoo2 cards, MGS4 can be ported to anything. It might not be perfectly identical, but a port's a port, and in the case of MGS, the chance of losing money is negligible.

    slurpeepoop on
  • KamiKami Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Thanks Drez, I was about to get the article, ahaha.

    I think the main reason why we probably won't see MGS4 on the X360 isn't a technical one: It's a preference of Kojima. He has a fondness to the Playstation brand, especially when it comes to Metal Gear. They 'grew up together' so to speak, and he almost feels as if he 'owes' Sony the Metal Gear series.

    Also, the fact that Kojima promised exclusive X360 content (please God, be Zone of the Enders or a Snatcher sequel) makes it seem a bit less likely for MGS4 to show up cross-platform. He wants to make an exclusive for every console, and from where I'm standing, the natural exclusive for the PS3 is Metal Gear Solid 4.

    To play my own devil's advocate, however, if there's any time that a huge transfer of a blockbuster IP wouldn't be out-of-place, it's now.

    Kami on
  • bongibongi regular
    edited March 2007
    i'm pretty sure hideo kojima's words had nothing to do with a port in terms of converting code or whatever and rather more does 360 have the sheer horsepower to do it

    the question didn't mention anything about porting the game, it was something like "could the 360 run metal gear solid 4?" in a "could it make graphics that nice" sense

    bongi on
Sign In or Register to comment.