5 replies to this topic

[carmel_andrews]

Here's the thinking


The only difference betw. the various systems is the sound/gfx hardware, the operating system (or bios) and any authenticating circuitry (i.e security chips/ lock out/regionlock out chips)

lets look at each in detail

Gfx/sound hardware, chips might be made buy their respective makers but the all do the same thing, they all have very similar if not the same capabilities/features just that each capability/feature might be called something else (like atari's display list might be called something else of the c64 and amiga's Blobs might be called PMG's on the atari)...so as a workaround on not infringing copyrights/patents

Operating system/bios

Each respective system basically has it's own way of interfacing with the other components (hardware) in the system as well as i/o devices, like contollers/keyboards, hard drives, cd/dvd devices etc and also configuring the system at the user end (i.e use of sound/gfx, resolutions, saving loading of data, i/o etc etc, but if you think about it whilst the various systems have their own bios, they essentially do the same thing, albeit that respective systems take on this feature.capability of the bios or o/s...so as a workaround on not infringing copyrights/patents


authenticating circuitry (i.e lock out/regionlock out chips)

Mainly used i guess to prevent homebrew software, unlicenced software and software not designed to be used on that particular regions system, from being used or run on that particular system, like the previous and first examples all authenticating circuitry (i.e lock out/regionlock out chips) do the same thing, just that different systems call a particular feature or techique/capability different things from the same or similar feature or techique/capability on someone elses authenticating circuitry (i.e lock out/regionlock out chips)...so as a workaround on not infringing copyrights/patents


The idea behind the FPGA chip (from my understanding) is essentually to combine a whole computer (or gaming hardware) into a single FPGA IC

Hence the theory of the 'computer/system on a chip' concept/idea

Now if you took out the gfx/sound hardware, Operating system/bios and the authenticating circuitry (i.e lock out/regionlock out chips) from the respective systems (a very small number of chips/ICs) you effectively have before you an off the shelf system (somewhat like a PC)

Now going back to the gfx/sound hardware, Operating system/bios and the authenticating circuitry (i.e lock out/regionlock out chips) differences (which they're practically are none, they just have different console makers names on them, but they all do the same thing

It is possible to do a variant/iteration of say a nintendo gfx/sound chip without infringing any copyright or patent (and similarly sony and MS), you simply understand each and every capability/feature of both sets of chips and program something similar to effectively do the same thing as the feature/capability on that chip you are trying to achieve and just call it something else (the commodore/atari example is an excellent case in point here) and just replicate that for all features/capabilities of said chips and bang, you have your own variant/iteration of said sound/gfx hardware and you aren't technically or legally infringing anyones patents/copyrights

The same applies to the operating system (or bios) and i/o IC's, you just program something similar to the feature or capabilities of that o/s routine you are doing a variant/iteration of to essentually do the same thing anyway (but wriiten, i.e programmed/coded a different way) and replicate that for all o/s routines i/o routines and capabilities/features of the O/S (or bios) and I/O chip and you effectively have a variant/iteration of said operaing sustem (or bios) and/or IO chip(s) and you aren't technically or legally infringing anyones patents/copyrights

The authenticating circuitry (i.e lock out/regionlock out chips)

There are two schools of thought here, (using the NES as example) school of thought 1 is the tengen/atari games approach (where you basically 'clone' the lock out or region lock out chip), school of thought 2 is the american video, colour/color dreams approach, where you basically say 'fuck you nintendo' (or sony/ms) we don't need your lock out chip/region chip to run our program, we will just include a sub program or more rom code within our rom code to LEGALLY and LEGITIMATELY BYPASS your region lock/lock out therefore allowing our game to be run on your system

The Atarigames/tengen approach i don't think works (and i think that was more then proved), whereas the colour/color dreams and american video approach not only works but has considerable merit in that you dont have to pay nintendo (or sony/ms) any licensing fees for programming games on their system (since you are basically bypassing the security system/lock out etc etc)

And since everything else is 'generic components' you could squeeze all that into an FPGA chip, your not infringing anyone's patents/copyrights (since you devised a variant or iteration of each component of that copyright/patented hardware but done those features capabilities in a different form and is differently programmed) and so long as you don't call it Wii or playstation or Xbox and call it your own name....you can't be sued

If they say, well your x feature is similar to this feature on our system.....just mention this word to them......ATARI, since every feature or capability within the gaming system hardware probably and possibly could and can be traced back to something that atari created or deigned or came up with (if not atari then coleco, commodore, amiga, channel f, magnavox and so on)

And also point out to them that any hardware or o/s feature or capability on one system is likely to be the same or similar (but differently programmed and structured) on another system, and basically similar features/capabilities on different systems are designed to do the same thing...again the commodore/atari example is an excellent case point here

Since the the gfx/sound hardware on a nintendo basically does the same thing as said hardware on sony/ms (albeit any features/capabilies within are called something else and structured/programmed differently) and the same goes for the o/s (or bios) and i/o chip(s) any authenticating circuitry (i.e security chips/ lock out/regionlock out chips), so, if you sue us, why aren't you suing sony or ms etc

And if nintendo/sony use the same trick on the FPGA market as they tried to in the emulation market, IT AINT GOING TO WORK, for every FPGA maker they close down, 10, 100, 1000 will open up and take that FPGA makers place that closed down (as what happened in the emulation market, Re: nintendo and UltraHle and Re: Sony against Bleem/conectix vgs, all that happened is that other emulators came alone to fill the gaps and these emulators where better and more advanced then the ones that were closed down) (no disrespect to subqmod,aka realityman)

I've no problem with sony/nintendo and ms protecting their so call patents/copyrights, but they are not fully exploiting the potential of their systems/platforms in the mainstream market (perhaps they should look at the other similar thread i made called '
The end of the 'branded' consumer good(s) is here ....and here's how
' and hopefully this will enable them to see the potential for FPGA so far as getting more marketshare for their console/variants of their console

....Or are the management of sony/ms and nintendo somewhat likened to the old warners atari management, i.e senior/top level management that know fuck all about the technology the comnay is selling let alone the technology the company was founded on (in respect to the gaming market they postioned themselves into), which means that that attitude/stance within their company and to their market permeates down to the intermediate and lower rungs of management and the company and what happens is, no creativaty or innovation of forward thinking/planning comes out from that company

As Atari proved all those years ago.....no-one but no-one really knows the videogame business, what might be flavour of the month one day might be wrapping up tomorrow's fish and chips

[GroovyBee]

No! An FPGA of the required gate capacity to handle modern consoles will be way too expensive to implement in the high volumes required. If you manufacture high volume consumer products its far, far cheaper to produce custom ASICs and mask ROMs in the long term.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Have you seen what the highest-end FPGA costs (per chip)? It would be cheaper to buy yourself a brand new Chevy Malibu.

What is price of this 'wonderchip'?

[per]

What I see from your article is that you try to exlain that graphics chips, firmware, etc. does the same thing in about any console, and thus any console would be easy to combine into a FPGA.

What I want to say is that you have serously misunderstood how the hardware actually works. In theory, yes; Graphics hardware produce graphics, Sound hardware produces sound, etc. but the hardware of the different consoles does it in very different ways. On the lowest level, the CPU usually speak to devices through registers. In order to do this, the developer has to know what registers does what. Allthough the spesifications may be similar; different graphics chips have different registers that does different things, so you can't just run code from one console in a different console. This is just one of the many reasons why games have to be ported between the different consoles.

I could have gone on and written about how all the low-level hardware architecture differs from console to console, but there is no point in doing that. What you attempt to describe is a console simulator, but you can't use real console software with it as the actual console hardware isn't emulated then.

----------

To sum it all up:
Allthough features may appear similar on different consoles, they are by far similar in implementation; thus most of your arguments are invalid.

Edited by per, Tue Nov 8, 2011 7:13 PM.

[remowilliams]

carmel_andrews, on Tue Nov 8, 2011 9:31 AM, said:

Here's the thinking

Is that what you call that?

Stop. Just stop. Stick to topics about the weather and other fluff if you really must.

[MN12BIRD]

System on a Chip (SoC) is nothing new. It's been around for ages. NVidia Tegra for example is essentially a full SoC with the CPU, GPU, Sound, IDE controller, Memory controller... everything to run a full computer system... all in one chip. This is what is in most of the tablets and smartphones these days. But these are small 2 core processors in the 1GHz range. The XBOX 360 for example has a tripple core CPU running at 3.2GHz and a GPU with 3 times the horsepower of any of these SoC on the market. Oh and BTW the 360 also uses a single chip solution for the main guts. That is the CPU's 3 cores, cache and GPU is all built into one chip anyway. These manufactures already know moving as much as you can to a single chip can save costs in the long run. But only if you can manufacture in large enough quantities to out weight initial design costs. Designing one die with all this extra stuff in it will cost more up front but pay off in the long run of manufacturing costs.

Sure someone could build the equivalent hardware of a "360 on a chip" or something in that range of performance but it would cost millions to design, end cost per unit could drop to par at best once manufactured in high volumes and here's the kicker, to manufacture in these kind of high volumes would require a billion dollar factory. Kinda like the ones Intel or IBM have. It takes Intel years to pay for the inital R&D and fab costs (factories) for a new line of processors. That cost is the bulk of a processors value. You aren't paying for the raw material that's for sure. So yeah, someone could make the chip. But not cheaper than the big boys (Intel, AMD, IBM, NVidia etc) are already doing it. Actually AMD doesn't even own it's own Fab anymore. They sold it off when they lost money a few years back. I believe Global Foundations does the Fab for many of the big chip designers right now.

Edited by MN12BIRD, Tue Nov 8, 2011 8:02 PM.