TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
I remember people pushing that online but it wasn't close to being true.At that time wasn't the tv division losing billions? So how could they cover PS3 losses if TVs were also losing money?
I remember people pushing that online but it wasn't close to being true.At that time wasn't the tv division losing billions? So how could they cover PS3 losses if TVs were also losing money?
It is one of the commandments of the Xbox SectWhy are you pretending the massive losses of the PS3 is news? And now you are suggesting Sony is cooking the books?
What is wrong with you?
Why are you pretending the massive losses of the PS3 is news? And now you are suggesting Sony is cooking the books?
What is wrong with you?
Ive always believed that the concensus was that sony turned it around in the second half of the generation and brought the playstation business back to profit.
Was what Shu is saying common knowledge?
I dont have any recollection of Sony telling the world that ps3 nearly sank them and lost billion
But the experts here told me I was wrong when I said ps3 lost a lot of money. something something... world wide consoles sold.. blah blah.
I dont have any recollection of Sony telling the world that ps3 nearly sank them and lost billion
It is one of the commandments of the Xbox Sect
"Never let anyone say on the Internet that the Xbox was never profitable"
Probably because it would attract the attention of shareholders who would shut down your Craigs Monkey circus.
Phill spent 12 years trying to disguise the hot garbage that the Xbox is, with its infinite losses and its Craigs Monkeys; It ended up that with the 80 billion spent on Activion, the CFO decided to analyze the Xbox accounts, got scared and ended the party.
Sony TV's were pretty popular in the late 2000s, this was when people were migrating from CRT screens to HD flat panel displays. Didn't last long until Samsung and LG took over the market. The early 2010s were difficult for Sony, with them shutting down their VAIO computer division, and de-merging from Sony-Ericsson into the Xperia line of smartphones.At that time wasn't the tv division losing billions? So how could they cover PS3 losses if TVs were also losing money?
The 8th SPE was supposed to be re-used for the PS2 softemu that was used for the alter PS2 classic tiles on PSN, but I don't think it ever materialised. It can be reactivated on some of the later models using a jailbreak, but it's only useful for Linux/OtherOS.Probably because it was a unified design between them Toshiba and IBM, meaning IBM were getting the full SPU use in their products and it was probably a free way for them to host parts of PSN on consumer standby power. A dedicated server is still dedicated whether it is in your consumers console or your telecom partners buildings or your own server racks, the SPUs were hypervisored so had full autonomy
Yeah it was odd they used the GDDR3 for the RSX, considering it had access to the FlexIO bus and could read from its XDR RAM, at a reduced rate. I don't think the Toshiba GPU would have been any more of an improvement, considering how limited the PS2's eDRAM was for textures, and how they planned on using the same technique for the PS3.Yup, it seems like the Reality Synthesizer was a last minute "plan B". I remember (wish I could find it) the rumors came out that Sony was licensing something from Nvidia and everyone thought it was either not PS3 related, or else just some tech that would be included in the Cell (Ars Technica speculated this). Nobody thought they'd straight up use a Nvidia GPU in the PS3. There was even an interview with some Sony higher up where they were asked if they were using an Nvidia chip in PS3 and he said something like "no that's ridiculous, we don't need Nvidia's help." Makes me wonder if he didn't even know about it at that time.
And they basically got a gimped GeForce 7900 with a 128 bit bus and its own pool of GDDR3, even though the Cell's RDRAM seems like it would've been well suited for VRAM. Looks like a last minute panic decision, no way in hell they would've designed it that way if they had more time.
Turning a proft in the second half of the generation doesn't mean they recovered all they lost. Yes, this is all common knowledge.
![]()
Sony has lost more than $3 billion on the PS3, so far
And with Microsoft also losing money, the future looks good for Nintendo....www.theguardian.com
Who told you that?
What on earth are you on about?
It was evident in their financial statements at the time.
![]()
Sony's quarterly loss widens
Sony's loss in the January-March quarter widened from a year ago on massive costs for the new PlayStation 3 game machine, but the company forecast that profit for the current year would more than double to a record on strong sales of flat TVs and other electronics.www.nbcnews.com
![]()
![]()
Sony announces £685m loss and warns of worse to come
Plunging sales and strength of yen lead to firm's first net loss in 14 yearswww.theguardian.com
And in doing so created the best looking games that generation. There were certain techniques that took till DX11 to match what Sonys graphics API was doing in combination with GL.That entire generation was a financial loss for both companies tbh. I recall the RROD incident also costing M$ billions to address. Only Nintendo came out unscathed and even then, their choices that gen ultimately led to the Wii U disaster.
Still love it though, we got some killer games despite that.
I'd argue the choice of GPU was more problematic. It was dogshit hardware for '06 and the 360s GPU beat it in most areas.
It also exacerbated CELLs issues. Even developers who were well versed in the CELL architecture were forced to use part of its capabilities to assist the GPU.
Sure but imagine what could have been possible with a CELL + G80 combo.And in doing so created the best looking games that generation. There were certain techniques that took till DX11 to match what Sonys graphics API was doing in combination with GL.
Tbf hardware upscaler didn't do anything that GPUs couldn't do basically for free - it was just a convenience for titles to target a single resolution without extra hoops (and save some memory for upscale). Flipside is that PS3 had quality/performance modes in many titles some 15 years before it was cool or press even deemed to report on it.Resolution recosntruction would have been great since the PS3 lacked a hardware upscaler for some reason.
I'm not sure if reactivating the 8th SPE for that was feasible. Afaik, the current hypervisor completely ignores the 8th SPE and lv0 is unfortunately still loaded while in BC mode. There's also the fact that Sony wouldn't know which SPEs worked correctly, meaning support for that software emulator would be spotty at best (especially in non-bc phats).The 8th SPE was supposed to be re-used for the PS2 softemu that was used for the alter PS2 classic tiles on PSN, but I don't think it ever materialised. It can be reactivated on some of the later models using a jailbreak, but it's only useful for Linux/OtherOS.
Yeah it was odd they used the GDDR3 for the RSX, considering it had access to the FlexIO bus and could read from its XDR RAM, at a reduced rate. I don't think the Toshiba GPU would have been any more of an improvement, considering how limited the PS2's eDRAM was for textures, and how they planned on using the same technique for the PS3.
That's the problem. Memory was VERY tight on PS3, especially with the OS taking up a huge chunk of it initially. Every little bit counts and having hardware that could do more than just horizontal scaling would be very beneficial. There's also the problem of some developer implementations not being up to snuff. Sonic Unleashed looks noticeably worse on my PS3 than my 360 despite them both outputting at 1080p. Apparently, the PS3 version even runs worse with 1080p seleced on the XMB.Tbf hardware upscaler didn't do anything that GPUs couldn't do basically for free - it was just a convenience for titles to target a single resolution without extra hoops (and save some memory for upscale). Flipside is that PS3 had quality/performance modes in many titles some 15 years before it was cool or press even deemed to report on it.
In fairness - 360 had some too - just - not as often because of the upscaler.
It was pretty well known that they were losing money on it. They even had it out in the open and in the red for a while in their financial reports. Which started the whole "Sony Doomed™."Why are you pretending the massive losses of the PS3 is news? And now you are suggesting Sony is cooking the books?
What is wrong with you?
I always have to remind myself that there are kids among us. Or people who weren't old enough to remember the legit doom and gloom of the days they're claiming to be nostalgic about. Sony as a whole was in deep deep shit for most of the PS3 era. But a lot of people look at the last 2-3 years of the PS3 era and the stellar output and think the entire gen was like that.It was pretty well known that they were losing money on it. They even had it out in the open and in the red for a while in their financial reports. Which started the whole "Sony Doomed™."
This revisionism is wild. Wildly projective.
You are describing criminal activities.Yeah. Clearly the numbers Sony have shared, convincing their fans that they are highly successful are bullshit.
Doesn't surprise me that they say they need to increase margins. They are probably still fudging the numbers to hide the real facts.
Also made the first OLED TV.Sony lost the TV business to LG and Samsung.
Pretty sad really they invented the LCD TV.
It was pretty well known that they were losing money on it. They even had it out in the open and in the red for a while in their financial reports. Which started the whole "Sony Doomed™."
This revisionism is wild. Wildly projective.
Turning a proft in the second half of the generation doesn't mean they recovered all they lost. Yes, this is all common knowledge.
![]()
Sony has lost more than $3 billion on the PS3, so far
And with Microsoft also losing money, the future looks good for Nintendo....www.theguardian.com
Who told you that?
What on earth are you on about?
It was evident in their financial statements at the time.
![]()
Sony's quarterly loss widens
Sony's loss in the January-March quarter widened from a year ago on massive costs for the new PlayStation 3 game machine, but the company forecast that profit for the current year would more than double to a record on strong sales of flat TVs and other electronics.www.nbcnews.com
![]()
![]()
Sony announces £685m loss and warns of worse to come
Plunging sales and strength of yen lead to firm's first net loss in 14 yearswww.theguardian.com
![]()
Yeah. Clearly the numbers Sony have shared, convincing their fans that they are highly successful are bullshit.
Doesn't surprise me that they say they need to increase margins. They are probably still fudging the numbers to hide the real facts.
Can't remember this stuff.
"Up to PS3, the system was already designed. Even our first-party development teams were notified after the fact. One day we were told, 'The next controller has a motion sensor.' What? They asked us to create a demo a week before E3. Make a demo with this motion sensor. They kept everything secret. I couldn't believe they did that. The Warhawk team did it, and Ken loved it. But that was the relationship. It was like the Great Wall of China."
If only there was a resource people could use before posting nonsense.
![]()
I like to make takes while the news is hot based on the evidence in front of me.
Cheers guys. Can't remember this stuff. I was in the thought that they'd turned it around completely in the end and it was only Xbox that lost tons of money due to RROD.
It wasn't their internal studios. The key person behind abandoning Cell as a GPU was Cerny. He had the task of writing the software GPU pipeline and while getting somewhat OK numbers of simple and gouraud-shaded polygons the moment he tried to do anything resembling complex shaders involving normal maps etc. the performances was abysmal. Insomniac did early Resistance art based on Mark's estimations at the time until it became clear to everyone involved that this would not work.the GPU choice was a direct symptom of the focus on the Cell.
they originally wanted to use 2 Cell processors, one for CPU tasks and one for GPU tasks.
then their internal studios basically told them that they are fucking crazy and that this would result in a PS2 HD instead of an actual next gen capable system.
that late into the development they then had to quickly get a GPU deal, and Nvidia "came to the rescue".
you could still see the aftermath of the original concept with the Cell as a GPU in early trailers. like the first couple of seconds of gameplay they showed of Resistance for example looked legit worse than og Xbox titles.
the final game also didn't look that much better than an og Xbox game running in HD, but they did the best they could to reconcile the hardware issues I think.
Microsoft made the right choice by looking at the best GPU they could get (an ATi GPU that was almost a year ahead of PC tech in fact) and telling IBM that they only want the main CPU core of the Cell in a tri-core configuration to have a simple setup for devs.
The original design was supposed to be 64MB eDram on the GPU and 128 on the Cell (no physical memory chips were planned at first). That's back when 360 was a 256MB machine also though - but yea they've basically designed a deferred shading accelerator with that thing. It would have been - interesting - to see results had those early machines came to pass...The Toshiba GPU could totally work if they limited what the eDRAM could be used for like 360, while also offering enough of it to fit a full framebuffer without tiling.
That's overstating things - if game ran at 720p and upscaled to 1080p - you lost about 4MB of memory. In the end, every bit of memory matters in a console, yes - but it wasn't some large premium, we're talking 0.8% of ram available. And indeed that's why some games upscaled to 1080 vertical and let the upscaler do the rest (so getting further 2MB back).That's the problem. Memory was VERY tight on PS3, especially with the OS taking up a huge chunk of it initially. Every little bit counts and having hardware that could do more than just horizontal scaling would be very beneficial.
That also wasn't PS3 exclusive. 360 upscaler had a broken gamma, and it was also programmable, where results varied from game to game. And the games running differently at different resolution was the result of not simply upscaling as I mention above - lots of software did this by late in the gen, including titles that specifically did 30fps 1080p and 60fps 720p tagets.There's also the problem of some developer implementations not being up to snuff. Sonic Unleashed looks noticeably worse on my PS3 than my 360 despite them both outputting at 1080p. Apparently, the PS3 version even runs worse with 1080p selected on the XMB.
It wasn't their internal studios. The key person behind abandoning Cell as a GPU was Cerny. He had the task of writing the software GPU pipeline and while getting somewhat OK numbers of simple and gouraud-shaded polygons the moment he tried to do anything resembling complex shaders involving normal maps etc. the performances was abysmal. Insomniac did early Resistance art based on Mark's estimations at the time until it became clear to everyone involved that this would not work.
It's not that great compared to today's standards. The way modern multi-core, multi-threaded processors work is way more efficient than what Cell tried to do. It had a raw floating point calculation advantage over PC processors at the time, but it was way less versatile and not well suited for the direction CPU's were going overall. That's why it never made it out of specialized applications.The cell is a great piece of technology even at todays standard. Even medical field use cell processor and it was banned to be exported to China due to military implication that tech might be stolen. To and many developers especially from third party complained so much about it even if 1st and 2nd party are amazing with the cell processor. I hope for its comeback on ps6, maybe a hybrid with AMD Zen. This will really help especially the PSSR ML.
It wasn't reduced for the RSX(22 gb or so measured, which lines up to paper spec about as well as most mem subsystems), latency was worse though so using it for writes was less than ideal. But you could texture from it perfectly fine.Yeah it was odd they used the GDDR3 for the RSX, considering it had access to the FlexIO bus and could read from its XDR RAM, at a reduced rate.
That depends on perspective, it would have been massively faster at deferred shading workloads, and with entire system running on eDram... but PC ports would get more cumbersome.I don't think the Toshiba GPU would have been any more of an improvement
Well cell can still have its practical use in medical field, data server, data mining, networking, and military. But for me, im still more impress with cell technology.It's not that great compared to today's standards. The way modern multi-core, multi-threaded processors work is way more efficient than what Cell tried to do. It had a raw floating point calculation advantage over PC processors at the time, but it was way less versatile and not well suited for the direction CPU's were going overall. That's why it never made it out of specialized applications.
Sony is much better off in the future relying on PC hardware tech than using a custom RISC CPU like Cell. Cell is probably best left to museums and technology history books.
Skimming Sony's annual reports, the big TV/electronics division stated losing money 2008 to 2012. So not at PS3 launch.I remember people pushing that online but it wasn't close to being true.
What? Wii grew the audience and Kinect rode on that wave while helping Xbox 360 to become the most popular Xbox ever. And PS3 ended up doing OK in the end with some truly remarkable games.PS3 wrecked the momentum video games had been on in the 90s and 00s and it's never fully recovered since.
And the cycle continues with Highsense and TCL...Sony released the first OLED TV too
Japanese staff from the likes of Sony and Panasonic used to fly over to Korea in the 90s to teach them how to make TVs at the weekend
All I know is years from now when it's time to buy a new tv, I'm seriously going to consider a TCL. I know LG OLEDs are the rave but when a good Lg is $2000+ cdn and a similar sized TCL is like $800, I might Scrooge it and save the $1000+.And the cycle continues with Highsense and TCL...