3 ms·

I'm curious about how such a bad idea made it to market. Not that the technical concept is bad, but the business decision to build an entire console generation

I'm curious about how such a bad idea made it to market. Not that the technical concept is bad, but the business decision to build an entire console generation on such a unique, ultimately migraine-inducing architecture.

MBCook 2y ago
Remember Cell was “the future”. It was going to go into the PS3, but also TVs and computers and whatever else. If you squint it’s a bit like Apple putting a ton of investment in the A series chips that then went into iPads and Macs (via the M series). Problem is: no one wanted it. So none of that panned out. If it had gone on to be something like Intel’s Core 2 Duo that showed up everywhere in hindsight it would look smart.
- initplus 2y ago
  Difference is that Apple invested heavily in backwards compatibility, even old x86 code performs well on their chips. Meanwhile cell requires a reworking of your entire program to take advantage of it.
  - MBCook 2y ago
    That was common for consoles at that time. The PS2 couldn’t actually run PS1 games, it just fell back to a PS1 embedded in the system. Same way the GBA played GB/GBC games. Apple wasn’t a great example but it was the best I could think of. It took Apple 10 years to go from the A4 in the first iPhone with an Apple chip to the M1 in the first Mac. They also were just using Arm, the same instructions that they had been using before and something well understood. They didn’t suddenly release something people weren’t really prepared for like a Transputer and just declare “this will be everywhere within three years“. They let the switch take its time as necessary. Sony had the arrogance to do both of those.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      > That was common for consoles at that time. The PS2 couldn’t actually run PS1 games, it just fell back to a PS1 embedded in the system. Also, the PS3 did the same for PS2. Sony eventually did away with that to cut costs, but the launch models had it.
      - Waterluvian 2y ago
        The software emulator was terrible, sadly. A whole collection of games didn’t work well.
    - astrange 2y ago
      > They also were just using Arm, the same instructions that they had been using before and something well understood. Apple switched to (and largely invented) ARMv8/AArch64 in the middle of that, which is very different from the ARMv7 they started with.
      - MBCook 2y ago
        True. What I meant was when the A4 came out it could still run the code that was already in the App Store. Ignoring all other hardware, the Cell couldn’t natively run PS2 code.
- duxup 2y ago
  I remember promotional materials showing it would be in refrigerators. I can’t imagine what they thought that refrigerator would do with it….
initplus 2y ago
It’s less a confusing one off decision to use a weird architecture, and more a failure to reconsider the status quo and stop using weird architectures. Previous PlayStation hardware was just as odd. Ps2 reused old surplus Ps1 processors just for audio, and had coprocessors just like cell.
0x457 2y ago
I don't think Sony expected Xbox 360 so soon. PS2 was sales were still good and there was no console on a market better than PS2 at that time. Then out of nowhere Xbox 360 comes out, Halo that was a macOS title suddenly a main and a well selling IP on Xbox. Not just that, it also picked HD-DVD as its format posing a threat to Blu-ray. Sony had to put something out.
- cmpxchg8b 2y ago
  Halo first came out on the original Xbox, not sure it ties into the PS3/360 calculus other than being a launch title.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    There wasn't even a Halo game as a launch title, but there was backwards support for the original Xbox Halo games on the 360. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_launch#Titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_launch#Titles There wouldn't be a Halo game released for the Xbox 360 until September 2007, nearly two years after the release of the console.
  - 0x457 2y ago
    I tie Halo IP to PS3/360 calculation because at the time of Xbox 360 - Halo became a major IP for Xbox. If you want to play new Halo with friends - you need an Xbox 360.
- Talanes 2y ago
  The 360 didn't pick HD-DVD as it's format, the built-in drive was just regular DVD. The HD-DVD drive was an external add-on that they sold along with the 360 Media Remote.
  - 0x457 2y ago
    Oh wow, it's even worse than I remember then. Surprised 360 had any sales at all then.
- vel0city 2y ago
failuser 2y ago
You forget that it was normal before. PS2 had many separate chips you need to program and balance throughout and latencies to make the most of hardware. PS2 was able to achieve 60 fps in many impressive games. Console hardware was very specific, the original Xbox being just an Intel PC was an exception.

MBCook 2y ago

Remember Cell was “the future”. It was going to go into the PS3, but also TVs and computers and whatever else. If you squint it’s a bit like Apple putting a ton of investment in the A series chips that then went into iPads and Macs (via the M series). Problem is: no one wanted it. So none of that panned out. If it had gone on to be something like Intel’s Core 2 Duo that showed up everywhere in hindsight it would look smart.

initplus 2y ago
Difference is that Apple invested heavily in backwards compatibility, even old x86 code performs well on their chips. Meanwhile cell requires a reworking of your entire program to take advantage of it.
- MBCook 2y ago
  That was common for consoles at that time. The PS2 couldn’t actually run PS1 games, it just fell back to a PS1 embedded in the system. Same way the GBA played GB/GBC games. Apple wasn’t a great example but it was the best I could think of. It took Apple 10 years to go from the A4 in the first iPhone with an Apple chip to the M1 in the first Mac. They also were just using Arm, the same instructions that they had been using before and something well understood. They didn’t suddenly release something people weren’t really prepared for like a Transputer and just declare “this will be everywhere within three years“. They let the switch take its time as necessary. Sony had the arrogance to do both of those.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    > That was common for consoles at that time. The PS2 couldn’t actually run PS1 games, it just fell back to a PS1 embedded in the system. Also, the PS3 did the same for PS2. Sony eventually did away with that to cut costs, but the launch models had it.
    - Waterluvian 2y ago
      The software emulator was terrible, sadly. A whole collection of games didn’t work well.
  - astrange 2y ago
    > They also were just using Arm, the same instructions that they had been using before and something well understood. Apple switched to (and largely invented) ARMv8/AArch64 in the middle of that, which is very different from the ARMv7 they started with.
    - MBCook 2y ago
      True. What I meant was when the A4 came out it could still run the code that was already in the App Store. Ignoring all other hardware, the Cell couldn’t natively run PS2 code.
duxup 2y ago
I remember promotional materials showing it would be in refrigerators. I can’t imagine what they thought that refrigerator would do with it….

initplus 2y ago

It’s less a confusing one off decision to use a weird architecture, and more a failure to reconsider the status quo and stop using weird architectures. Previous PlayStation hardware was just as odd. Ps2 reused old surplus Ps1 processors just for audio, and had coprocessors just like cell.

0x457 2y ago

I don't think Sony expected Xbox 360 so soon. PS2 was sales were still good and there was no console on a market better than PS2 at that time. Then out of nowhere Xbox 360 comes out, Halo that was a macOS title suddenly a main and a well selling IP on Xbox. Not just that, it also picked HD-DVD as its format posing a threat to Blu-ray. Sony had to put something out.

cmpxchg8b 2y ago
Halo first came out on the original Xbox, not sure it ties into the PS3/360 calculus other than being a launch title.
- vel0city 2y ago
  There wasn't even a Halo game as a launch title, but there was backwards support for the original Xbox Halo games on the 360. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_launch#Titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_launch#Titles There wouldn't be a Halo game released for the Xbox 360 until September 2007, nearly two years after the release of the console.
- 0x457 2y ago
  I tie Halo IP to PS3/360 calculation because at the time of Xbox 360 - Halo became a major IP for Xbox. If you want to play new Halo with friends - you need an Xbox 360.
Talanes 2y ago
The 360 didn't pick HD-DVD as it's format, the built-in drive was just regular DVD. The HD-DVD drive was an external add-on that they sold along with the 360 Media Remote.
- 0x457 2y ago
  Oh wow, it's even worse than I remember then. Surprised 360 had any sales at all then.
vel0city 2y ago

failuser 2y ago

You forget that it was normal before. PS2 had many separate chips you need to program and balance throughout and latencies to make the most of hardware. PS2 was able to achieve 60 fps in many impressive games. Console hardware was very specific, the original Xbox being just an Intel PC was an exception.