Book details how Sony paid for Xbox 360 dev, let Microsoft borrow its car, acted like a doormat
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted January 1st 2009 9:02AM
posted January 1st 2009 9:02AM
This year we've seen the PS3's Cell processor pitch in and help break the petaflop barrier, exploit a major security hole in SSL encryption and enable adolescent hijinks on PlayStation Home. Obviously, this is one serious piece of kit. According to The Race For A New Game Machine, written by two of the folks responsible for designing the thing, the Cell (a partnership between Toshiba, Sony and IBM) was the product of a deal that opened the door to IBM selling key parts of the chip to Microsoft before they had even finished building it -- even though this was clearly not part of the plan. Essentially, Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for their rival, helping the Xbox 360 make its launch date of November 2005, while the PlayStation 3 was pushed back a full year. It seems somewhat fitting that the troubled game system should have such dysfunctional origins, no? [Via PS3 Fanboy]
This means you can trust no one.
The book seems to skip the other side of the fence complete.
First let's address the PowerPC, MS took hold of the PowerPC 'that IBM was hoping to sell to Apple, and made some modifications via MS funding and MS Engineers.
Now for the contrast...
The writers of this book need to look at the NVidia Geforce 7900 in the PS3, as the money and DESIGNS that helped NVidia create their DX9 cards came from a company called Microsoft.
It was also MS's engineers that helped NVidia with the Geforce4ti chip design, that is the upper desktop version of what is in the original XBox - being the first 3D GPU with PS, etc.
It was MS money and engineers that 'designed' and funded Geforce4ti and all the future Geforce GPU designs that came from this - from teh first DX9 GeforceFX series cards all the way up to the end of the Geforce 7xxx series.
When NVidia was crying to MS for more money per GPU for the original XBox, MS explained, that they had given them the technology that is behind their entire PC line of GPUs and funded the creation of this technology, giving them their market edge and success and wasn't going to give them more money per GPU MFRed for the XBox.
Both NVidia and Sony got the benefits of MS money and MS GPU development. This is why when MS did the 360, they helped ATI but kept the design ownership of the GPU they created.
And again, the XBox 360 GPU design was the first in another generation of GPUs with features like a unified shader that are now standard in almost all desktop GPUs.
So I really don't care how much money Sony gave IBM on the Cell processor.If Sony wants to bitch about it, they can chip in on the development money and designs MS gave NVidia that was the precursor to the Geforce 7900 used in the PS3.
Sony also delayed the PS3 more themselves than anything IBM could have down, as they were determined to get GPU level performance out of their Cell design up until 2005 when they found they couldn't get the performance numbers needed and pulled in NVidia to adhoc in the Geforce 7900 to the design of the PS3, delaying it further and adding to the cost.
And we aren't even getting to the horrid Sony development tools that were still lacking, and if they were waiting on good supply of parts from IBM, they could of at least had their development tools DONE and polished instead of the crap they gave game developers. - In contrast MS's development tools were ahead of the hardware and used modded G5 Mac hardware running Windows XP64.
This is about the craziest and most insane article, and probably book I have seen in a long long time. They spend time bitching about the Cell processor development time IBM gave them and seem to forget all the goodies they got from the MS Engineers when it comes to the core of the GPU technology used in the PS3.
Geesh.
Can you back up your bullshit with anything? Like what exactly did Microsoft "give" to NV or how did they help?
Most of the R&D in graphics card development goes into GPU architecture research (and process optimizations, but NVidia outsources their fabbing). While it's pretty certain that NVidia did receive help from Microsoft to help optimize their graphics card to DirectX 9 APIs (and vice versa NVidia helped Microsoft develop the APIs), it's only a drop in the ocean of the work required for making actual GPUs, and if you'd bothered with basic research you'd see that Microsoft a) has no real GPU design expertise b) used to produce crap graphics APIs (eg. Direct3D < 7 retained mode, older DirectXs) until graphics card makers showed them the light.
This is some serious bullshit/exaggeration.
1. IBM also spent money on the Cell. Of course they use advancements made during it's development for other products.
2. The Xenon (360 CPU) is based on the PowerPC architecture, with three cores, SMT and modified AltiVec/VMX units. It's nothing revolutionary new, just improved and more specialized than the PowerPC-CPUs that have been around for years. The Cell is a single PowerPC core (with an AltiVec unit) that also acts as sort of a controller for the 7 coprocessors (SPEs).
Of course Xenon's development may have received some benefits from Sony's Cell money. But blaming Sony's fail on the traitor IBM and thief Microsoft is making things way to easy.
Microsoft offers an environment that does not brake with traditions but nonetheless offers some serious power through optimizations and well-placed additions. Sony's architecture is new and revolutionary and offers even more power, but requires more work (= more money) to be spent by the developers for the same results. In times when developers have to go multi-platform to earn enough money giving them a platform that is significantly more expensive and difficult than the others is foolhardy. Despite the Cells theoretical capabilities very few are willing to spend enough money to use them to their full extent.
pwnt!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069467545545011.html
"But a funny thing happened along the way: A new "partner" entered the picture. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the (as yet unnamed) Xbox 360. In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core. Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony.
All three of the original partners had agreed that IBM would eventually sell the Cell to other clients. But it does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary videogame-console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it."
-------------------
Unbelievable. You'd think there'd be legal agreements so air-tight that this wouldn't even be allowed to occur.
Sounds like a very interesting book to me.
Parents hate to see their children becoming couch potatoes when playing games.
Nintendo realizes that and adapted to real-life conditions.
It's that simple really.
As parents, would you care about terraflops for your kids to become even more couch potatoes?
And the depression and low-self esteem that ensue right after that?
BOOK is a TROLL.
IBM can do whatever they want, they OWN CPU, Sony and Microsoft both knew that the IBM CPU can be used against them via their competitor (unless they sign a agreement with IBM stating that.) Otherwise Sony is just idiot, or the Book author is just Trolling (I think the latter.)
Karl:
"production line rubbish from EA"
I'm sorry, but I can't take your opinion serious anymore. I think you meant Activision and NOT EA.
All the babble aside. My 360 Elite is on the way to TX for repairs (my second 360). So i gave Microsoft $100 for Christmas, as if they didn't have enough money, and I am playing my PS3 right now without a hitch. Before people start trying the bash me, I love my 360 but they should have made them better.
The x360 is surely unreliable, i just bought my 3rd last month.
Reason :
1. each console last a bit longer than a year before it self destructs itself.
most of the time its not fixable or cost is higher than or close to new one.
2. Most of my games are already X360
3. ......... Xbox LIVE .............
I hate the X360 but i Love Xbox LIVE !!!!!!! without it, i can play each game for max 1 week.
with Xbox live, Ive been playing halo for 5 years
Who Cares????
Les
Truth is the PS3 was delayed because Sony tried to unify the CPU and GPU because they thought their 'Cell" was amazing and it performed horribly. So cry all you want about RROD but LIVE is 10000000000% better then PSN. Thats why xbox sales are so much better. M$ knows what they are doing they didn't become the worlds largest (and profitable) software company by having a bunch of idiots at the wheel. Im sure this will just fall into their future plans for something else.
Les
Just a quick one about the Wii and console sales...
Avid gamers purchase either the PS3 or XBOX360 based on their preference of games. Those who like online games buy an XBOX while those that like platformers and sports games to play off-line buy a PS3. Those that don't want high def movies get an XBOX while those that desire the latest in hi def get a PS3.
Wii sales are explained easily: both of these sets of people buy Wii's! Most gamers I know have a PC, an XBOX360 or PS3, and a Wii.
This business of IBM is pure savvyness and great business sense on their part. Sony is at fault for allowing IBM to sell to competitors. To call the PS3 a failure is premature because no one has seen the real power of the console due to Sony's stupidity. I believe that the XBOX360 sales figures for the same period of time on the market as the PS3 are pretty comparable to Sony's sales.
Just remember that in the end, we all benefit because there is choice in the market and we all have the ability to buy what suits our needs.