9 ms·

After Xbox dev mode, I think Sony needs to be more open about their console development. This might just be stepping stone in the right direction.

mtgx 11y ago
Before announcing the PS4, I was hoping Sony would adopt Linux, mainly because I think it would've done a great service to the Linux community by having games that run well on Linux, but I think it would've also helped Sony in the long run. Microsoft is already banking on "DirectX gaming" for both Windows and Xbox. Sony should've had a similar strategy. They should go all-in with Linux and Vulkan with future consoles.
- iamcreasy 11y ago
  I was really hopeful when they switched to x86 architecture. But it has been over 2.5 years. Nothing yet. They have lowered the price of dev kit, they approach more indie developers then every before, they even have a indie fund. But they would have more games if they try the other way around - if they could somehow lower the barrier for game developers to approach them.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  I understand that these PS4s use a BSD, so I think Sony has adopted "unix" in technology but not the Linux philosophy. It's totally closed off.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  What advantage would any of that have over FreeBSD? They've already got a kernel that gets them all of that, so why change that that isn't broken?
  - jhasse 11y ago
    It would be easier for developers to port their Linux games to the PS4.
    - yo-code-sucks 11y ago
      Bullshit, posix. Porting from Linux to BSD is a walk in the park.
    - Sanddancer 11y ago
      FreeBSD has a Linux compatibility module that works for most binaries, and source should be just a recompile in almost all cases.
    - feld 11y ago
      How? A console is a very specialized device. The GPU access is vastly different from what you get when you use accelerated drivers on Linux/FreeBSD, for example. If you can compile it on Linux, you can probably compile it on FreeBSD. Sorting out the rest is not OS specific, it's a completely different beast.
      - iamcreasy 11y ago
        > The GPU access is vastly different from what you get when you use accelerated drivers on Linux/FreeBSD, for example. Can you elaborate on this one. How are they different?
        cmrx64 11y ago
        You don't use OpenGL etc, you use their proprietary graphics API.
        iamcreasy 11y ago
        Looks like Sony is far far away from developing something like XBox dev mode.
        feld 11y ago
        You're pushing raw data to the GPU which is directly executed. I've heard there's a ~15% performance increase doing it this way, but you could never do this with a general purpose OS due to the huge security problems it creates.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Sony had their flirts with Indies and Linux and walked away from it. The Playstation had Net Yaroze, which was almost comparable the usual devkit. A collector's item nowadays. The PS2 had PS2 Linux, which required special RGB monitors with sync on green, but it provided almost the same access to the hardware as the devkits. The main difference was the amount of available RAM, only PS2GL and the higher level PS2 official graphics API were available. The low level one wasn't accessible. The PS3 provided a very limited support for Linux. The graphics hardware was exposed as a plain framebuffer. Then came the firmware update that wiped Linux out of the PS3. The PS Vita did offer a Mono based SDK, but after the initial release, they went silent. You can still access the web site, though. The PS4 already exposes two graphics APIs much more powerful than Vulkan, with the developers being quite experienced on them. If you search SCEE and GDC Vault web sites there are plentiful documents and sessions, NDA free, how the console market works.
  - pandaman 11y ago
    I have not used PS2 Linux but I am curious how was it possible to limit the low level graphics API? Did they not let you run VU1 code? The retail games were just writing registers on GS from VU1 (and few smart ones were also streaming textures directly to GS). There was no API involved other than kicking DMA chains to feed VU1 (and that was just writing a pointer into a user register anyway).
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      You didn't have direct hardware access from Linux, the access was exposed via an abstraction library which was a bit higher level than what the devkit allowed for. Then there was PS2GL which was built on top of that, also not quite like the GL version on the devkit. But both shared the same fate of not being used that much.
      - pandaman 11y ago
        So you could not write VU code? Sounds pretty useless if true.

mtgx 11y ago

Before announcing the PS4, I was hoping Sony would adopt Linux, mainly because I think it would've done a great service to the Linux community by having games that run well on Linux, but I think it would've also helped Sony in the long run. Microsoft is already banking on "DirectX gaming" for both Windows and Xbox. Sony should've had a similar strategy. They should go all-in with Linux and Vulkan with future consoles.

iamcreasy 11y ago
I was really hopeful when they switched to x86 architecture. But it has been over 2.5 years. Nothing yet. They have lowered the price of dev kit, they approach more indie developers then every before, they even have a indie fund. But they would have more games if they try the other way around - if they could somehow lower the barrier for game developers to approach them.
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
I understand that these PS4s use a BSD, so I think Sony has adopted "unix" in technology but not the Linux philosophy. It's totally closed off.
Sanddancer 11y ago
What advantage would any of that have over FreeBSD? They've already got a kernel that gets them all of that, so why change that that isn't broken?
- jhasse 11y ago
  It would be easier for developers to port their Linux games to the PS4.
  - yo-code-sucks 11y ago
    Bullshit, posix. Porting from Linux to BSD is a walk in the park.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    FreeBSD has a Linux compatibility module that works for most binaries, and source should be just a recompile in almost all cases.
  - feld 11y ago
    How? A console is a very specialized device. The GPU access is vastly different from what you get when you use accelerated drivers on Linux/FreeBSD, for example. If you can compile it on Linux, you can probably compile it on FreeBSD. Sorting out the rest is not OS specific, it's a completely different beast.
    - iamcreasy 11y ago
      > The GPU access is vastly different from what you get when you use accelerated drivers on Linux/FreeBSD, for example. Can you elaborate on this one. How are they different?
      - cmrx64 11y ago
        You don't use OpenGL etc, you use their proprietary graphics API.
        iamcreasy 11y ago
        Looks like Sony is far far away from developing something like XBox dev mode.
      - feld 11y ago
        You're pushing raw data to the GPU which is directly executed. I've heard there's a ~15% performance increase doing it this way, but you could never do this with a general purpose OS due to the huge security problems it creates.
pjmlp 11y ago
Sony had their flirts with Indies and Linux and walked away from it. The Playstation had Net Yaroze, which was almost comparable the usual devkit. A collector's item nowadays. The PS2 had PS2 Linux, which required special RGB monitors with sync on green, but it provided almost the same access to the hardware as the devkits. The main difference was the amount of available RAM, only PS2GL and the higher level PS2 official graphics API were available. The low level one wasn't accessible. The PS3 provided a very limited support for Linux. The graphics hardware was exposed as a plain framebuffer. Then came the firmware update that wiped Linux out of the PS3. The PS Vita did offer a Mono based SDK, but after the initial release, they went silent. You can still access the web site, though. The PS4 already exposes two graphics APIs much more powerful than Vulkan, with the developers being quite experienced on them. If you search SCEE and GDC Vault web sites there are plentiful documents and sessions, NDA free, how the console market works.
- pandaman 11y ago
  I have not used PS2 Linux but I am curious how was it possible to limit the low level graphics API? Did they not let you run VU1 code? The retail games were just writing registers on GS from VU1 (and few smart ones were also streaming textures directly to GS). There was no API involved other than kicking DMA chains to feed VU1 (and that was just writing a pointer into a user register anyway).
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    You didn't have direct hardware access from Linux, the access was exposed via an abstraction library which was a bit higher level than what the devkit allowed for. Then there was PS2GL which was built on top of that, also not quite like the GL version on the devkit. But both shared the same fate of not being used that much.
    - pandaman 11y ago
      So you could not write VU code? Sounds pretty useless if true.