By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Should Sony Abandon the PSP?, or You Can't Spell Ignorant without...

Attoyou on 12 January 2010
deathgod33 said:
raygun said:
Well, they only sold 500,000 of them LAST WEEK ALONE, and there's 55 million of them sold SO FAR, why in the hell would someone think it's a failure?


DS sales completely rape them. and besides, i think we can all agree that Nintendo makes the best handhelds and that job should remain solely with them.

Well YOU thought Wrong Because WE DONT All Agree , PSP Is GREAT  , Just Because IT Gets outsold By The DS Does not make it a Fail or a Bad handheld , Same Way with Wii And PS3 Or 360 . This was just silly.



Atto Suggests...:

Book - Malazan Book of the Fallen series 

Game - Metro Last Light

TV - Deadwood

Music - Forest Swords 

Around the Network
dharh on 12 January 2010
jarrod said:
dharh said:

I guess it depends on what you call a DS. The original DS (and DS Lite) would probably need quite a bit of re-engineering to run FFVII and more specifically FFVIII. The DSi is a about 2-3 times more powerful than the original DS, which might even make it more powerful than the PSP, even though the PSP actually has a little over 2 times the clock speed of the DSi.

My only point is I want to play the original, as was, FFVII and FFVIII, on a portable unit. This re-make stuff doesn't really interest me unless its truly fundamentally better, which really, for me, could only be done with upgraded graphics and FMVs. The successes of the FFIII and FFIV remakes on the DS were largely due to upgrades of the game engine (bringing them up to par with FFVII and FFVIII, although imo not really better).

In any event, FFVII and FFVIII could actually be re-done on the PS1 and could be improved on it as neither of these games pushed the PS1 or the PSP to full capabilities. I've been arguing about the purity of a port, you've arguing about fundamental changes to the games so they could fit on a different system.

No, they wouldn't.  In terms of technical ability the original DS/Lite could easily handle FFVII/VIII.  And make no mistake, DSi isn't nearly as powerful as PSP either.  FFIII/IV DS were both also far more technically complex than the PS1 trilogy btw.

I'm arguing that PS1/DS class games don't really highlight PSP's unique handheld experience.  I mean, unless you're really suggesting it's best possible use is as nothing but an emulation machine?

My original point, really, was just that FFVII/FFVIII was on the PSP and thus made it superior  (I wasn't even thinking about PSP/PS1 being more capable than the DS, at the time).



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
finalrpgfantasy on 12 January 2010

i think that they should stop making new models because that is an failed attempt of win.



jarrod on 12 January 2010
dharh said:
noname2200 said:
dharh said:

I guess it depends on what you call a DS. The original DS (and DS Lite) would probably need quite a bit of re-engineering to run FFVII and more specifically FFVIII.

The thing is, many of us can not figure out why you're saying this.

It's mainly because I know the limitations of the DS. It's quite a interesting bit of engineering, but it was given strict limits on its capabilities (one wonders why though). The polygon count of the DS is not really impressive, also it has to deal with two screens, though you could limit the use of one of the screens and thus focus most of the processing power to only one of the screens.

The polygon capabilities of the PS1 are more powerful than DS, and the PSP is more powerful than the PS1. With the DSi on the other hand this is not necessarily the case. I dunno if the DSi is fundamentally more powerful than the PSP, given the limited info on it still, but it probably is. Fact remains though that we are talking about the DS and not really the DSi. 

Really though my original argument, again, was specifically about the purity of the original games, FMVs and all. Which again, again, would have to removed/changed/etc to work on the DS.

DS manages 100k textured lit polys @ 60 fps on just the ARM10.  This isn't a peak theoretical though, it's actually in game.  We don't have a comparable figure for PS1 (Sony only gave out peak figures, not used in-game environments), but we can look at emulators to find some.  Tekken 3 was just 60-80k pps @ 60 fps on PS1 iirc, so well below what DS is capable of for a well regarded 4th/5th gen PS1 game and possibly the best looking game in it's genre that gen.

Where DS really outclasses PS1 though is in memory.  4MB main ram vs just 2MB on PS1.  On DSi, this balloons to 16MB (though some is reserved for the background OS).  DS actually has a more capable chip for 3D though (it's Z-buffer alone basically ensures that) and even has hardwired support for stuff like cellshading, scanline rendering, etc.  In actual game performance, DS pretty much smokes PS1 from every angle unless you're using only flat, unshaded, unlit polygons.

Also, FFVII/VIII each have less than an hour of FMV, which means that alone could be squeezed on to a 128MB DS card using standard DivX compression with plenty of room to spare.  Again, the games wouldn't need to have anything removed, period.



jarrod on 12 January 2010
dharh said:
jarrod said:
dharh said:

I guess it depends on what you call a DS. The original DS (and DS Lite) would probably need quite a bit of re-engineering to run FFVII and more specifically FFVIII. The DSi is a about 2-3 times more powerful than the original DS, which might even make it more powerful than the PSP, even though the PSP actually has a little over 2 times the clock speed of the DSi.

My only point is I want to play the original, as was, FFVII and FFVIII, on a portable unit. This re-make stuff doesn't really interest me unless its truly fundamentally better, which really, for me, could only be done with upgraded graphics and FMVs. The successes of the FFIII and FFIV remakes on the DS were largely due to upgrades of the game engine (bringing them up to par with FFVII and FFVIII, although imo not really better).

In any event, FFVII and FFVIII could actually be re-done on the PS1 and could be improved on it as neither of these games pushed the PS1 or the PSP to full capabilities. I've been arguing about the purity of a port, you've arguing about fundamental changes to the games so they could fit on a different system.

No, they wouldn't.  In terms of technical ability the original DS/Lite could easily handle FFVII/VIII.  And make no mistake, DSi isn't nearly as powerful as PSP either.  FFIII/IV DS were both also far more technically complex than the PS1 trilogy btw.

I'm arguing that PS1/DS class games don't really highlight PSP's unique handheld experience.  I mean, unless you're really suggesting it's best possible use is as nothing but an emulation machine?

My original point, really, was just that FFVII/FFVIII was on the PSP and thus made it superior  (I wasn't even thinking about PSP/PS1 being more capable than the DS, at the time).

PS1 isn't more capable than DS.  It has a larger (and much slower) stock media and a better audio chip, but also far less memory, weaker 2D, weaker 3D, a weaker CPU and no wireless/online networking capability.



Around the Network
GerOhMyGosh on 12 January 2010
Carl2291 said:
deathgod33 said:
raygun said:
Well, they only sold 500,000 of them LAST WEEK ALONE, and there's 55 million of them sold SO FAR, why in the hell would someone think it's a failure?


DS sales completely rape them. and besides, i think we can all agree that Nintendo makes the best handhelds and that job should remain solely with them.

DS sales completely rape everything... Ever.

Just because DS outsells it, doesn't mean it is a failure.

Exactly!!! Let's say you made a little over six figures in income last year, are you a failure because your neighbor made almost double of that? Sure good for your neighbor, but good job to you as well and be happy of it.



dharh on 12 January 2010
jarrod said:
dharh said:
jarrod said:
dharh said:

I guess it depends on what you call a DS. The original DS (and DS Lite) would probably need quite a bit of re-engineering to run FFVII and more specifically FFVIII. The DSi is a about 2-3 times more powerful than the original DS, which might even make it more powerful than the PSP, even though the PSP actually has a little over 2 times the clock speed of the DSi.

My only point is I want to play the original, as was, FFVII and FFVIII, on a portable unit. This re-make stuff doesn't really interest me unless its truly fundamentally better, which really, for me, could only be done with upgraded graphics and FMVs. The successes of the FFIII and FFIV remakes on the DS were largely due to upgrades of the game engine (bringing them up to par with FFVII and FFVIII, although imo not really better).

In any event, FFVII and FFVIII could actually be re-done on the PS1 and could be improved on it as neither of these games pushed the PS1 or the PSP to full capabilities. I've been arguing about the purity of a port, you've arguing about fundamental changes to the games so they could fit on a different system.

No, they wouldn't.  In terms of technical ability the original DS/Lite could easily handle FFVII/VIII.  And make no mistake, DSi isn't nearly as powerful as PSP either.  FFIII/IV DS were both also far more technically complex than the PS1 trilogy btw.

I'm arguing that PS1/DS class games don't really highlight PSP's unique handheld experience.  I mean, unless you're really suggesting it's best possible use is as nothing but an emulation machine?

My original point, really, was just that FFVII/FFVIII was on the PSP and thus made it superior  (I wasn't even thinking about PSP/PS1 being more capable than the DS, at the time).

PS1 isn't more capable than DS.  It has a larger (and much slower) stock media and a better audio chip, but also far less memory, weaker 2D, weaker 3D, a weaker CPU and no wireless/online networking capability.

Take a closer look at the memory. 4(main)+.656(vid)=4.656mb of memory for the DS and 2(main)+1(vid)+.5(sound)=3.5mb of memory for the PS1. That doesn't seem like far less memory to me. Also the highest reached polygon count of the PS1 was about 150k textured lit polygons, though SONY () said the theoretical output was 1 million 'flat, unshaded, unlit polygons.' Ultimately its the DS additional features which limit the DS to match raw power of PS1 and PSP. The wireless, the 2 screens, the touch sensitivity, the lockout limit on polygons, the smaller media all cost the DS raw power unless turned off. 

Of course the DSi trounces all of those systems.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
jarrod on 12 January 2010
dharh said:
jarrod said:
dharh said:
jarrod said:
dharh said:

I guess it depends on what you call a DS. The original DS (and DS Lite) would probably need quite a bit of re-engineering to run FFVII and more specifically FFVIII. The DSi is a about 2-3 times more powerful than the original DS, which might even make it more powerful than the PSP, even though the PSP actually has a little over 2 times the clock speed of the DSi.

My only point is I want to play the original, as was, FFVII and FFVIII, on a portable unit. This re-make stuff doesn't really interest me unless its truly fundamentally better, which really, for me, could only be done with upgraded graphics and FMVs. The successes of the FFIII and FFIV remakes on the DS were largely due to upgrades of the game engine (bringing them up to par with FFVII and FFVIII, although imo not really better).

In any event, FFVII and FFVIII could actually be re-done on the PS1 and could be improved on it as neither of these games pushed the PS1 or the PSP to full capabilities. I've been arguing about the purity of a port, you've arguing about fundamental changes to the games so they could fit on a different system.

No, they wouldn't.  In terms of technical ability the original DS/Lite could easily handle FFVII/VIII.  And make no mistake, DSi isn't nearly as powerful as PSP either.  FFIII/IV DS were both also far more technically complex than the PS1 trilogy btw.

I'm arguing that PS1/DS class games don't really highlight PSP's unique handheld experience.  I mean, unless you're really suggesting it's best possible use is as nothing but an emulation machine?

My original point, really, was just that FFVII/FFVIII was on the PSP and thus made it superior  (I wasn't even thinking about PSP/PS1 being more capable than the DS, at the time).

PS1 isn't more capable than DS.  It has a larger (and much slower) stock media and a better audio chip, but also far less memory, weaker 2D, weaker 3D, a weaker CPU and no wireless/online networking capability.

Take a closer look at the memory. 4mb of memory for the DS and 2(main)+1(vid)+.5(sount)=3.5mb of memory for the PS1. That doesn't seem like far less memory to me. Also the highest reached polygon count of the PS1 was about 150k textured lit polygons, though SONY () said the theoretical output was 1 million 'flat, unshaded, unlit polygons.' Ultimately its the DS additional features which limit the DS to match raw power of PS1 and PSP. The wireless, the 2 screens, the touch sensitivity, the lockout limit on polygons, the smaller media. 

Of course the DSi trounces all of those systems.

No, 150k textured was the original peak N64 figure (later revised down to 100k).  Peak PS1 was 180k textured polys (revised down from 500k), peak Saturn was 200k textured "quads" (original figure, never revised).  None of them were "in game" figures, none of the manufacturers actually gave "in game" specs until Nintendo with GameCube.  Also, I was off on the DS "in game" figure, it's 120k.  It also has a higher pixel fill rate (30 million/sec versus just 4000/sec for PS1).  The big advantage for DS 3D comes it in having hardware Z-buffering however, which keeps polygons more stable and "in order" and also allows a lot of post processing effects that'd be impossible on PS1.  It's basically a class ahead of it for 3D (like N64 was).

Also, I was only comparing main RAM.  DS also has a 656KB video buffer, 512KB dedicated for texture memory, 64KB work RAM for the ARM9, 32KB for the ARM7 and 256KB flash for the OS and WiFi settings.  Plus, DS is RAM expandable, unlike PS1.

 

edit: DS does have a lockout ceiling for polys though (the 120k figure).  This is to ensure locked framerates (120k pps is for 60 fps).  Sega's Model 2 board (which was used for VF2 and Sega Rally) actually used a similar locked limit method.



The Ghost of RubangB on 12 January 2010
nordlead said:
famousringo said:
He lost me when he asserted that Sega was once synonymous with gaming.

I actually had to reread that sentance like 5 times to make sure I read it right.

Yeah, me too.  That was when I stopped reading and started skimming.

Whenever somebody makes that claim, I can no longer take them seriously.  I just can't help wondering why they missed out on Chrono Trigger and Donkey Kong Country.  Did they really fall for Blast Processing?  Or was it the "omg they took the blood out of Mortal Kombat!!!?!?!?"  Either way, these guys all grow up and write this same trash all over my internet.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

dharh on 12 January 2010
jarrod said:
dharh said:
Take a closer look at the memory. 4mb of memory for the DS and 2(main)+1(vid)+.5(sount)=3.5mb of memory for the PS1. That doesn't seem like far less memory to me. Also the highest reached polygon count of the PS1 was about 150k textured lit polygons, though SONY () said the theoretical output was 1 million 'flat, unshaded, unlit polygons.' Ultimately its the DS additional features which limit the DS to match raw power of PS1 and PSP. The wireless, the 2 screens, the touch sensitivity, the lockout limit on polygons, the smaller media. 

Of course the DSi trounces all of those systems.

No, 150k textured was the original peak N64 figure (later revised down to 100k).  Peak PS1 was 180k textured polys (revised down from 500k), peak Saturn was 200k textured "quads" (original figure, never revised).  None of them were "in game" figures, none of the manufacturers actually gave "in game" specs until Nintendo with GameCube.  Also, I was off on the DS "in game" figure, it's 120k.  It also has a higher pixel fill rate (30 million/sec versus just 4000/sec for PS1).  The big advantage for DS 3D comes it in having hardware Z-buffering however, which keeps polygons more stable and "in order" and also allows a lot of post processing effects that'd be impossible on PS1.  It's basically a class ahead of it for 3D (like N64 was).

Also, I was only comparing main RAM.  DS also has a 656KB video buffer, 512KB dedicated for texture memory, 64KB work RAM for the ARM9, 32KB for the ARM7 and 256KB flash for the OS and WiFi settings.  Plus, DS is RAM expandable, unlike PS1.

 

edit: DS does have a lockout ceiling for polys though (the 120k figure).  This is to ensure locked framerates (120k pps is for 60 fps).  Sega's Model 2 board (which was used for VF2 and Sega Rally) actually used a similar locked limit method.

You bring up N64, Saturn, why exactly? Highest count I found in a PS1 game was 150k, but if you've got a better game I ain't gonna argue. And actually the pixel count of the DS vs PS1 needs a closer look as well. The DS has a max 1024x1024 texture size of pixels or 1048576 pixels. The PS1 on the other hand has max 4000 8x8 pixels or 256000 pixels. While thats 4 to 1, its again, the polygon limit that gives the DS the disadvantage (in that department anyway). 



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.