BETTER SEGA STRATEGY THAN SATURN????

...

I thought you said that the Saturn hardware was finalized significantly
later than the PS1 hardware was.

And started completely over, sometime in 93', and the PS1 launched in Japan
in 94'.

So, you're saying that because PC OSs and programs don't use Dual CPUs,
and the Saturn was designed so that you must use both CPUs, the PC design is
better?

Right, which they did with the Genesis architecture in late models.

But as a system's lifecycle, a normal lifecycle I mean, progresses, such
advancements may become more easy as technology advances and manfacturing
processes become streamlined. As I mentioned, Hitachi's SH3 and SH4 have
interrupts that can cause them to run in multiple 32-bit mode, instead of
wasting time trying to manufacture multiple SH2's on one die, they made a
more advanced RISC processor that was essentially capable of running in a
mode that was exactly how multiple SH2s would run.

Sony also developed the EE themselves, Sega was never into that, they
always used off the shelf parts, or paid some other company to develop their
hardware, as has Nintendo and now Microsoft. Making your own chips for your
console is not common practice, and I'm very sure it was not even remotely
cheap. Meaning that only a massive monopolistic company like Sony could
afford to do this in the first place.

...

Okay, before I go into this I'd like to say that I'm just discussing it, and
everything I say is just as I understand it, and very subject to being
wrong. I'm also very happy to be corrected in these matters.

My point in short could have been that developers that just focused on
making games for the Saturn using the hardware the way it ran by default had
little trouble getting the Saturn to perform on a competitive level with Dev
Kit PS1 games. Complaints to the contrary are from individuals bitching
about how hard it was to write code that told the hardware to do new things,
like the SH2s running in unison, or worse yet making only one VDP do all of
the work, not using one of the SH2s at all, and not using the DSP.
This is also basically what you just said, from a cup is half full
perspective. Developers that complained about the Saturn, were trying to
force the hardware run in a typical way that they were already familiar with
(PC, PS1). It wasn't hard to get good performance out of the system, it was
hard to get good performance out of the system while trying to make it run
like a PC or PS1.

Now for the long version.

#

Page 9 describes the SCU DSP pretty well exactly as you just did. It
could be used in a similar fashion to the PS1's GTE in that it could do
calculations for polygon transformation and it could send requests, and
share memory with, the VDP1, which AIUI handles most-to-all of the Saturn's
polygon calculations and display. That's all fine and dandy, that's a more
detailed look into the system's architecture.
All I was trying to say is that there should have been no reason for
developers to *need* to write code for how the SH2s interact with each
other, or how they share memory, as there were controllers in the system
that already knew how to do that on their own. I remember talk in magazines
of the day saying that Sonic R, or some game around the same time was the
first game that actually used both SH2s at the same time, meaning that one
wasn't just slave to the other and picking up latency slack as the system
was designed to do.
In order to do that I'm sure there needed to be special code created to
control the two CPUs running at the same time, which would have been a very
complex task, especially for a developer new to the system, but doing this
was not a necessity in order to make a game comparable to PS1 games on
Saturn. Programming for the system as it was designed to run, main SH2,
slave SH2, VDP1 for polygons and texturemapping, VDP2 for 2D display and
manipulation, and SCU DSP to pick up the extra processing slack was nowhere
near as complex, and did not require developers to write code on how each
and every thing interacted and shared memory. I think it's very significant
that developers COULD write such code for their software if they chose to
though, which brings me to my next point.
Sega's internal teams and other developers complained about the Saturn
being complex while they were learning about it (the same thing happened
with the PS2 when there weren't dev kits), but some teams persevered and
developed software of comparable or superior performance to anything on the
PS1 in a normal length development time (Sega Rally, VF2, VOOM, Virtua Cop,
PDZ, Thunderforce V, DOA, Cyberspeedway, High Velocity, Powerslave, Duke
Nukem, etc...). The thing about the negative comparative comments about the
Saturn's complexity vs the PS1's ease of development had less to do with the
architecture and everything to do with the fact that Sony would not allow
developers at the time to code in assembly, they were all using Sony's C
libraries, which were already optimized for the system.(
# ).
So, developers saying that the Saturn was too complicated, and that it
took longer to make games for it, were comparing efforts written in
assembly, where the developer was trying rewrite how the system was designed
to run, in addition to writing code for the game they were making, to
writing only a game in C libraries provided by Sony that already had all of
the coding necessary for special effects and polycounts necessary to run
most software. It's apples to oranges. If you go later into the PS1's
lifecycle you get similar complaints by developers, coding in assembly
finally, of the PS1's limitations (VRAM limitations being the foremost).

Most can be found at <URL:#>

-a

On Wed, 28 May 2003 12:37:22 GMT, "Scott H" <W>
wrote:

With this in mind, has anyone got a copy of the dev. docs or has seen
them out and abou? I'd be very intrested.

On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:26:16 +1000, "Craig Hancock"

Because the PSX has a huge customer base, rather than Sony alienating
it by releasing a completely original and non-compatable piece of
hardware, they made the PS2 backwards-compatable so it seems like the
natural evolution to the standard PSX. This was particulaly important
to children and younger gamers who own few games and cannot afford new
ones frequently as they can still use old games on 'new' PSones.

As well as this, it meant that the PSone wouldn't die a quick,
premature death like the Megadrive did after the Saturn was released.
Even now, new PSone games are being released and there is enough
demand for them that they haven't disappeared and Sony is still making
a good few quid. To this day Sony is still manufacturing PSX games.

It also meant that second-hand systems would flood the market meaning
that many people who didn't own one before would pick it up and buy
many games themselves. This is also why they released the small PSone,
to encourage existing owners to sell their old PSXs and start playing
on their 'new' PSones.

Quite a clever move by Sony, despite the fact I have a loathing. I've
probably gone on a bit much about this considering I'm responding to a
one line reply. But there we go.

SNIP

A more detailed explanation. Great info!

The fact remains that the Saturn was still overly complicated to program on
while the PlayStation used a very elegant design for its architecture. -
Reinhart

Didn't I just say that a couple of posts ago?

Actually, Sony totally abandoned the original design requiring the SNES and
started from scratch.

However, there is a difference between PCs that use dual CPUs and the Saturn.

In PCs, the dual CPU configuration does not provide any benefits except in the
event that you run a program that is designed to work with such a configuration
or if you are running utilities that would otherwise overload a single CPU
setup, such as a network server, as a dually would divide the workload evenly
between the two resources.

In the Saturn, optimal code is written to use both resources simultaneously and
totally for the game.

A.K.A., turn it into an LSI (Large Scale Integration).

However, developing LSI chips to integrate constituent components into a
multifunction IC cost a lot of money to develop, particularly if it will be a
custom component.

Sony had already planned to develop a VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) for
the PlayStation from the very beginning. It was figured out at initial
development, as opposed to being an afterthought. - Reinhart

All games use the SCU's functionality (DMA, interrupt controlling). The
integrated DSP is only one part. The fact remains that the DSP is a
mostly unneccessary complication which is less suited for its intended
purpose than its Playstation counterpart. In one operation, the PSX GTE
calculates transformations, light-source calculation, gouraud-shading
values and perspective projection. The SCU DSP can be programmed to
perform most of these operations (but lacks a division instruction for
instance) but it is one additional component to write and debug. The DSP
can do things the GTE can't, but a good software engineering rule is to
"optimize for the common case" which is closer to the Playstation's
design. Even Sega's own teams had problems with the Saturn, for crying
out loud!

-a

...

Well, timeline wise, neither was the final hardware for the PS1.
Nintendo had to have backed out on the deal sometime after the Sega CD
launched in 1992, which would be probably sometime in 1993, and both the
Saturn and PS1 were launched by the end of 1994 in Japan. So, Sony had 1-2
years at the most to decide how their system was going to work as a stand
alone console, without the Snes attached, and get software ready for launch.
Reportedly the Saturn specs absolutely finalized 1 year before its launch.
I can't remember, when did Sega finally announce that the Dreamcast's
graphics set was going to be PowerVR and not 3dfx? Wasn't it early 1998?

It wasn't exactly a patch together job for Sega though, they were very
experienced in multiple CPU architecture, their developers even seemed to
prefer doubling up arcade boards to creating all new boards. Heck, I even
remember people in the PC world oogling over any PC with dual CPUs, even
though only Win NT used it. Also, Hitachi's successor chips to the SH-2
were all backwards compatible, so theoretically they might have been able to
compress two SH-2s onto one die eventually, should the system have gone
mainstream, creating the sales and time needed streamlining the
manufacturing process to benefit them.

...

Basically the development docs describe it exactly like that, a controller
for everything on the system, and a memory manager. Developers who were
bitching about having to write code to sync the two CPUs obviously weren't
using the controller.

More good info. Thanks. Then, like Sega, Sony's aim was also for 3D polygon
games. The path that Sega traveled with the Saturn wasn't really "long worn,"
though.

However, implementing a second CPU to "pump it up some more," assuming that
this was the action that was taken, would still introduce a manufacturing
obstacle which may make streamlining the mainboard more difficult. This means
that it may cost more to make a Saturn than it would to make a PlayStation in
the long run. - Reinhart

On the Saturn's sloppyness, the much joked about DSP chip actually did have
preset

Thanks for the extra info. - Reinhart

...

This is a rumor, it is not fact. In order for Sega to not have had 3D
in the Saturn, and only to have thrown it in at the last minute in response
to Sony's announced PS1 specs, Sega would have had to have had absolutely NO
plans to take advantage of its strong arcade games, that were all 3D after,
92' or so. The facts on this subject are that Sega had the architecture
pumped up some more, and the model for a next gen console that was basically
an upgraded System 32 was finally scrapped, not that they "threw in 3D at
the last minute".

...

Ah, Ken Kutaragi, there's a guy who's never been wrong for ya. On the
Saturn's sloppyness, the much joked about DSP chip actually did have preset
controls for the dual SH2s and VDPs, it was a hardware dev kit of sorts in
that sense. If developers had used the DSP from the start, there would have
been much less bitching about optimizing software for dual CPU architecture,
which none of the good developers bitched about in the first place.

Nothing may have stopped Sony realistically, letting Saturn software sit
and bake for a year may have helped Sega in the US. Since the Saturn sold
toe-to-toe with the PS1 in Japan until FF7 came out, and ended up being a
success there in general.

Actually, Sony was the first. The PlayStation was intended for 3D right at the
start after Nintendo double-crossed them. However, Sega learned of this when
the PlayStation was in development and implemented 3D into the Saturn by
introducing a graphics engine and a second SH-2 CPU into the Saturn
architecture. Sega's decision was very last-minute and the implementation not
very efficient. This is why programmers didn't have a lot of time to come to
grips with the system. This is also why the Saturn is great at 2D; it was
designed primarily as a 2D system from the start. All the implementation to
help the Saturn to compete with its competition in 3D was all done at the last
minute, and it didn't give much time for programmers to study the additions and
find ways to run code with it most efficiently. - Reinhart

And if Sega would've designed the Saturn with better implementation of the 3D
engine.

Sony designed the PlayStation to be downsized. The mainboard was designed to
be easier to streamline, and thus be less expensive to manufacture in the long
run. Sega's implementation of 3D into the Saturn architecture was not very
neat and made it more difficult not only for designers to streamline the
mainboard, but also for programmers who had to deal with writing code that was
optimized for a parallel-dual CPU architecture and the 3D engine. Sega's
implementation was a last minute decision with relatively sloppy execution.
The Saturn was, as Ken Kutaragi said, a "very inelegant design."

It still wouldn't have stopped Sony from being a success in Japan, though,
because Sony handled distribution of software dramatically different from what
Sega and Nintendo did. Sony's model was very simplified and took into
consideration the distinct rapid production advantages of the CD-ROM medium.
This meant increased potential for profit with far less risk. Sony was able to
do this because they had the resources. They had the money, they had the
business architecture already in place through Sony Music, and they had the
capability of making CDs in addition to hardware. Sega never had those
resources, and Nintendo wasn't willing to budge from their own business model
in order to compete with something that was more efficient. - Reinhart

No. In many ways, it probably would've exacerbated Sega's bad situation since
they would be competing with more innovative hardware from Nintendo and
especially from Sony.

Sega did intend to release the Sega Neptune, which was a Genesis/32X in-one.
However, it never made it past the prototype stage.

In Japan, Sony would've torn Sega to pieces either way, much like it did to
Nintendo. Sony was out to make the PlayStation not only to get even with
Nintendo, but to revolutionize software distribution because of CD-ROM and
their resources to deal with it most economically and efficiently.

Sega and NEC had troubles with their CD-ROM software because they had to be
distributed through the Shoshinkai channels, along with following the rules of
the Shoshinkai distribution organization, and replication of CDs had to be
handled by a third party. They didn't have the resources to make their own
discs or establish a new distribution model that would take advantage of the
CD-ROM medium.

Shoshinkai, which was established by Nintendo, demands that a software product
be manufactured with market conditions predicted a full three months in
advance. This was because mask ROM, while highly durable, took a long time to
manufacture.
The Shoshinkai channel would handle inventory of items and distribute the stock
to whatever part of the market needed them. It was very common to either run
out of stock with demand unfulfilled or fufill demand with a surplus, which
means that a software company either lost an opportunity to make more money or
lost money on unsold products. To get additional orders, you had to wait
another three months for manufacturing to be completed, by which time demand
would dwindle.

Sony had the resources to make their own discs and establish a new distribution
model, avoiding the Shoshinkai system and its rules which were tailored to mask
ROM cartridge products.

Instead of predicting sales three months in advance, you predicted them right
then and there. You would then make and distribute the product when the market
was ripe for the taking. When you run out of inventory, you simply file an
order and wait a few days, as opposed to months, for a resupply when there is
still demand. - Reinhart

I agree with Scott, that had the Saturn not of had any polygon ability, or even
just a seriously low one like the 32X, it would have died immediately. Now, what
would have been nice was that whole rumor that the Saturn could play 32X games in
the cart slot. Imagine if it could not only have done that, but played Genesis and
Sega CD games as well...

Bel

OK, There WAS a MEGADRIVE 2, a GENESIS 2 and even a GENESIS 3 released.
These were the original MEGADRIVE/GENESIS revamped with less custom chips
(they were combined together) to make them cheaper to make.
What you are talking about here is the NEPTUNE which was made as a prototype
but never released.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The Saturn was (for its
time) a very abitious little machine that Sega hyped but kept delaying. This
"vapourware" hype created huge expectations that the Saturn could never have
lived up to, so the Saturn quickly got a reputation for being, well, crap.
Word of mouth unfairly killed the Saturn well before Sony threw the
Playstation into the ring.
Anyway, the Saturn was trying to do what hadn't been done before: Decent
hardware 3D for a low console price, by the time the N64 and Playstation
came out, they were walking a well worn path. It doesn't pay to be first in
the console game.
After all, it took centuries for someone to find a path to the top of Mt
Everest but in the 50 years since, hundreds have traveled that same path.

So how many people bought a PS2 so they could play PS games?

Craig

...
I think people would have thought differently

Hi!

"Bass Guitar God" <> escribi?? en el mensaje
...

I think that both SegaCD and 32X where innecesary systems. The main
advantage (and almost the only one) of the SegaCD was the huge amount of
memory available for games (that was mainly used to load big amounts of full
motion video, which doesn't helps playability in most cases, and the quality
was limited by the number of colors in screen), and the 32X served to put
the Genesis at the same or slightly higher level than SuperNES, but not even
near real 32-bit systems like Playstation. Both systems were expensive and
they never had a good bunch of games on their catalogue.

It would have been nice the retro-compatibility with Genesis games, although
it were neccessary an adaptor. Sega's three previous consoles had a very
good compatibility: it was possible to play with Master System II games on
the Game Gear (and vice-versa?) and Genesis, using an adaptor. By the way,
didn't the Saturn have a cartridge slot? It would have made easier to
develop such adaptor.

Personally, I think while the 32X is a neat machine, I think the machine
should have been aborted. From what I remember, the cart based 32X was what
was developed by Sega USA. Sega of Japan opted for the Saturn and the cart
based 32 bit system became the 32X. I'm probably messing up the history.
So please correct me if I'm wrong :-) I think the 32X was a mistake. The
time between the 32X and Saturn was minimal and support for the 32X was
almost non-existent. I think the resources pooled for the 32X should have
been used on the Saturn. I also agree that the Saturn should have been
delayed until the system was better understood by the programmers. If The
Saturn originally had a quality pack in like Virtua Fighter Remix instead of
the original block-a-thon, I think people would have thought differently
about the Saturn. I think if the Saturn had backwards compatibility with
the Genny and Sega CD, it would have been far more successful. Good topic
though Bass.

Mojo

Without polygonal 3D it wouldn't have stood much of a chance. However,
releasing such a system back in 93-94, and holding back the Saturn until
96-97, when software dev kits were matured and 3rd parties had the time to
learn more about the hardware may well have worked for them. Something like
that might have continued Genesis sales, and thus continued revenue in
software and system sales, and given Sega the extra year or so to work on a
killer launch line-up for Saturn, in addition to gamer anticipation. Tom
Kalinskie said to SOJ that they should let him push the Genesis for another
year, and they insisted that the Saturn be launched in 95', which ended up
being one of their choices that's most often called a mistake.