Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 8:10 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Electronic Arts Inc. (ERTS) Message Board

  • nsthil nsthil Jan 7, 2001 12:46 AM Flag

    Biggest games to be launced on XBOX

    will not be ERTS titles. They will not dominate
    as with PS2. WWF and Tony Hawk will be launced on
    XBOX before making it to PS2. Yikes.

    PS2 will
    not be the hot console next fall. Flush some of that
    PS2 development money down the toilet.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "Following the industry for many years, and
      hoping to be part of it soon, I am not restricted to
      just blurting out technical specs, rather I also have
      educated, and justifiable
      opinions."

      trini,

      I'm glad to hear that you have "educated, and
      justifiable opinions".

      It is interesting that you
      follow that statement with:

      "One is catridge
      based, one is not. The transition form one to the next
      is not a simple one, and simply creating catridge
      based games are a pain in the ass."

      Excuse me
      for asking trini, but "How do you know?"

      I
      have worked on shipping PS1, N64 and PS2 games. Why
      are you telling me that "creating a cartridge game is
      a pain in the ass"? I work in the game industry,
      and I develop code for consoles every single day. You
      can accuse me of being an over-confident developer
      (it wouldn't be the first time I heard it) -- but
      don't question my knowledge of console
      development.

      I don't mean to pick on you -- I just want to make
      a point...

      With some notable exceptions, the
      postings on this board regarding console game development
      are extremely inaccurate.

      If anyone is
      interested, here are some of my thoughts:

      My main
      complaint with this board is the *over emphasis* in
      specific console technologies.

      When you see a PS2
      game, you have to be able to "look past" the PS2 -- and
      see the technology of the game itself. The PS2 is
      just a collection of very fast hardware. It may draw
      textured polygons at amazing speeds, but it doesn't do
      much else. The remaining 98% of the game is not
      "platform specific".

      The remainder of the game is
      the development of technologies that use the console,
      but don't necessarily *require* the
      console.

      It is the development of curved surface technology,
      smooth animation systems, realistic physics models,
      convincing 3D sound, real-time environment mapping, and
      perfect collision detection. These technologies are not
      specific to the PS2, or the XBox, or the GameCube, or any
      other system -- but are extremely difficult to develop
      and are very valuable. Once created, the technologies
      may be re-used in future titles, on different
      platforms.

      As a consumer, the new consoles seem very different.
      Almost anyone you run into on the street (as this board
      proves) can rattle off PS2 and XBox hardware specs -- and
      how they compare. As a developer, the systems seem
      very similar -- each has it's quirks, and there may be
      a new instruction set -- but they all do the same
      basic thing: "render textured triangles very very
      fast".

      If one system provided hardware support
      for direct rendering of implicit surfaces, or some
      other revolutionary render technology -- that would set
      the console apart. But, unfortunately, they are the
      same... Just big triangle rendering machines.


      Porting between the systems is tedious, but not too
      difficult. The differences in RAM/VRAM specs is annoying,
      but is not a big issue. Textures can be lower
      resolution, or less mip-maps, or lower sound quality, etc...
      Many of the differences in the platforms can be
      compensated for by changing the game's data -- rather than
      large changes to the code itself.

      If you are
      interested in implicit
      surfaces,
      http://www.mkp.com/books_catalog/catalog.asp?ISBN=1-55860-233-X

      That's enough of my rambling... I'll be back soon with
      some more non-sensical gibberish (I love
      that)
      cheers --

      ps - trini, thanks for being a good
      sport. Don't give up on the CS.

    • I'll be able to blurt non-sensical jibberish as well. Talk to you then!

      Here's a tip, apply at Acclaim Entertainment.

    • Time out! I think you misunderstood the whole
      two-chip fiasco. The point was that aside from the core
      processor, there were two chips, not that there were only
      two. As for being over my head, for now that may be
      true, but as a student majoring in computer science, it
      won't be for long. Following the industry for many
      years, and hoping to be part of it soon, I am not
      restricted to just blurting out technical specs, rather I
      also have educated, and justifiable
      opinions.

      Now you said that the PS1 and N64 are similar in
      spec. One is catridge based, one is not. The transition
      form one to the next is not a simple one, and simply
      creating catridge based games are a pain in the ass. You
      just proved that although they may be similar in spec,
      so you say, the ability to port one game from one
      platform to another isn't easy. Thanks for proving my
      point, and in about 3 years, I'll be able to blurt
      non-sensical jibberish as well. Talk to you then!

    • Those sound like more educated opinions than ones
      that suggest that ERTS can easily and cheaply make all
      their games available for all systems. If that was the
      case they should have just ported Madden over to DC to
      take get some of the sales that million seller NFL2K
      made.

      I have seen some terrible port of games before over
      to similarly powered systems. If you dont commit the
      dollars and staff to the job it can be great way to ruin
      the reputation of a great game.

    • You're right man in saying that it can be easy to
      port certain games, but there are several "if" factors
      that need to be considered, and you've covered some of
      them. But most times, games are not direct ports, and
      usually have system-specific levels, or other designs
      that would not be found the the same game on a
      different console. As a result, models may change, and new
      designs and animations may be required, as well as some
      new AI etc. So while it may be easy to port a couple
      games, most take a longer time. But at least there's
      someone who knows what they are talking about, and not
      talking out their butt, like the original poster.

    • nsthil,

      I've been watching this board for
      about six months. You seem to be a competent trader
      (congrats on the CHCS pick) -- but you don't seem to
      understand game development.

      I know you're short. I
      know you want the stock to drop. I know you use this
      message board to try and drive it down.

      (Relax
      guys, that's what everyone is doing. If you think these
      boards are "discussions" about stock, you are completely
      blind. This board is a traders tool -- not a source of
      information.)

      Anyway, I don't care what you say about this stock, but
      don't try to talk about game development. I'd suggest
      sticking with the "standard short tatic": cite technical
      jargon.

      Tell us about the moving average. Tell us about
      resistance. Tell us about lower highs, and lower lows. Just
      don't talk about game development.

      "Flush some
      of that PS2 dev money down the toilet"??

      What
      are you talking about?

      ERTS did not invest in
      the PS2. They invested in making "next generation"
      games. The choice of launch platform is secondary. When
      the "next generation" game is complete, moving to
      another equilivant system is trival.

      I'm not even
      going to address you comments about WWF and Tony Hawk.
      The success of those games on XBox has absolutely
      nothing to do with the success of ERTS games. (How stupid
      do you think the readers of this board
      are?)

      Bottom line: ERTS has invested in making 128 bit games
      that use 50+ million polys a second. Madden and SSX
      are NOT PlayStation2 games -- they are "next
      generation" games that are using the PlayStation2 to render
      themselves. (Please re-read this paragraph until you
      understand the distinction.)

      Does this mean that ERTS
      stock will go up? I don't know... ERTS has a huge
      investment in online business, and revenue streams are
      questionable. And the PC market is down.

      • 2 Replies to esi_eax
      • "Bottom line: ERTS has invested in making 128 bit
        games that use 50+ million polys a second. Madden and
        SSX are NOT PlayStation2 games -- they are "next
        generation" games that are using the PlayStation2 to render
        themselves. (Please re-read this paragraph until you
        understand the distinction"

        What does that mean they
        can just turn around and port the games over to any
        other 128 bit next generation system at minimal cost or
        investment. NOT.

 
EA
27.57-0.02(-0.07%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc.
NasdaqGSWed, Jan 15, 2014 4:00 PM EST