• Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5! # ps2 emulators Old topic! Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic. 27 replies to this topic ### #1gomola Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 30 December 2001 - 11:11 PM don''t you think ps2 emulators would work in sony''s favour, if they are going online gaming, then pc owners could buy ps2 sofware to play online.its all very well saying dreamcast, x-box etc. have online capabilities but people who have online capabilities in there home, have it on there PC not there TV (especially broadband). i think Sony would benefit if they released an official PS2 emulator for PC''s, thus taking would be X-Box customers. People who own PC''s have no need for the X-Box. Sponsor: ### #2cyn Members - Reputation: 138 Like Likes Like Posted 30 December 2001 - 11:25 PM seeing as how sony all but shut down Bleem i think a ps2 emulator will be unlikely. cyn ### #3Mystery Man Members - Reputation: 508 Like Likes Like Posted 30 December 2001 - 11:47 PM See things this way... Sony makes a PS2 for$500 (just a guess, I may be wrong, but I do know that they loose money from each system sold). They sell the system for $300 resulting in a loss of$200. If they dont sell that system, though, its a loss of $500. If they did make an emulator, they''d probably have to stop selling systems because no one would be buying them and they''d keep loosing hundreds of dollars for each emulator they sell. Now you see why companies don''t favor emulators? On its highest level, one would think by making an emulator, you''re saving Sony the$200 it looses on a system, but in reality, all you''d be doing is depriving Sony of $500. Geddit now? Johnny Watson Owner/Main Programmer Vigasotech, Inc. ### #4garconbifteck Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 31 December 2001 - 02:07 AM They lose money!! :p , so they rely on people buying games and accesories to make money, right? Website:PC-Gaming MSN messenger:garcon_bifteck@hotmail.com Email:garconbifteck@pc-gaming.com ### #5antistuff Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 02 January 2002 - 02:07 PM Supposedly sony doesnt loose money on ps2s. your thinking of the xbox and i heard that sega used to loose money for each console they sold. i keep hearing this and seeing it debunked as a rumor. my guess is that because it was so publicised that ms looses money on the xboxes they sell its assumed that money is lost on all consoles. dont flame me if im wrong, but please show me some proof. ### #6Ravyne GDNet+ - Reputation: 11148 Like Likes Like Posted 04 January 2002 - 08:14 AM Actually most consoles do loose money for the first couple years. During this time they rely on software royalties(they get like 10 bucks for every game sold) and hardware royalties(no idea how much.) Yes the Xbox is loosing somewhere between 100-200 bucks per console. MS is doing this to ensure a future in the console market, they don''t even plan to turn a profit until Xbox 2 from what I''ve heard. Sony and nintendo are both loosing money on their new consoles as well but probably not quite as much as Xbox. Then again MS can afford it. ### #7 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_* Guests - Reputation: Likes Posted 06 January 2002 - 06:09 AM quote: Original post by Ravyne Actually most consoles do loose money for the first couple years. During this time they rely on software royalties(they get like 10 bucks for every game sold) and hardware royalties(no idea how much.) Yes the Xbox is loosing somewhere between 100-200 bucks per console. MS is doing this to ensure a future in the console market, they don''t even plan to turn a profit until Xbox 2 from what I''ve heard. Sony and nintendo are both loosing money on their new consoles as well but probably not quite as much as Xbox. Then again MS can afford it. Where did you get this information, though? I''ve read multiple articles that say that sony has never lost money per unit on a console, and neither has nintendo. That''s something that sega did on the saturn and the dreamcast to try to compete with the playstation, and now microsoft is doing to compete with the more established and efficient console manufacutrers. ### #8JasperW Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 09 January 2002 - 10:47 AM Check out Edge (UK) #104 p. 21: quote: Expected loss made by MS for each Xbox sold: USD 100 - USD 150 (GBP 68 - GBP 102) Expected loss made by Sony for each PS2 sold: JPY 10,000 (GBP 57) Expected loss made by Nintendo for each GameCube sold: JPY 3,000 - JPY 3,500 (GBP 17 - GBP 20) I assume part of the loss comes from other factors than production like development and marketing. With marketing maybe even more than production and development but together considering the enormous adventising campaigns. Jasper ### #9trzy Members - Reputation: 100 Like Likes Like Posted 09 January 2002 - 02:55 PM I would think Sony does _not_ actually lose money on console hardware. I don''t know for sure, of course, but seeing as how Sony is a huge player in the consumer electronics business, it seems reasonable to assume they have the expertise to manufacture PS2s and still make some profit. After all, they make profit on their other hardware (TVs, CD players, etc.) As for why they would not like a PS2 emulator, the answer is probably "control", if not a loss of revenue. Sony wants to control who''s playing games on their system, and wants to make sure it has control over its brand name. They don''t want you playing PS2 games on a PS2 emulator because that emulator isn''t made by Sony, and they won''t make a PS2 emulator because they want you to buy a PS2 and the "console experience" that comes with that. Otherwise, you''d just be playing games in a buggy and slow (modern PCs could not emulate a PS2 at a playable speed) PC program. We won''t be seeing PS2 emulation any time soon, if ever, anyway... --- Bart ### #10 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_* Guests - Reputation: Likes Posted 10 January 2002 - 07:05 PM quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster Where did you get this information, though? I''ve read multiple articles that say that sony has never lost money per unit on a console, and neither has nintendo. What? Do you really think something like the PS2 or GameCube costs LESS than$300 or, for crying out loud, $200 to make? Honestly. GameCube loses a lot of money off its system, but breaks even for the most part because everything about it is very small in proportion. That is, only if the games sell well enough. I haven''t seen too much of it to tell. PS2 has lost money as well-- a bad launch, an expensive system, few games, complaining developers, systems being smuggled into Iraq, a slumping economy in the States, September 11... Tell me they''ve had it easy. And either way-- back to the issue of a PS2 emulator. With the technology of the PS2 (IT''S 128-BIT!), and the difficulty to program it, I think an emulator couldn''t even make it off the design floor. And let''s not forget-- Bleem sucked. Why should I trust another Bleem, an ugly, illegal deal that makes my games look all screwy and confusing. ### #11Enjolras Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 10 January 2002 - 07:34 PM If I uinderstand the situation correctly the PS2 still has a WORD size of 32 bits. Its 128-bit in the way that my diamond stealth was 128 bit like 6 years ago. IE: It has a wide 4 channel bus, but the various CPU's generally process at 32 bits each. The PS2 architecture would be very difficult to emulate for a more pertinent reason, however. It is more like a collection of different specialized processors (graphics, sound, etc...) with a fairly weak central CPU that acts more like a scheduler to keep all of the other stuff in sync. Instead of having a single big system bus that connects the CPU to basically everything else...the PS2 has a very wide system bus that shuttles information from place to place. The system leans on this bus because the designers felt like it could handle transferring data across the bus almost every frame. In a way this is neccesary to support the multi-step design of the PS2, and in a way it was a pipe dream. This is precisely why so many games suffer from strange periods of slow-down.. the bus, while wide, is not wide enough to pull in lots of new information. [ A prime example is many of the EA Sports games. In NCAA 2002, when the play ends, often players will perform some special animation or do something otherwise out of the norm for the game. This requires a ton of information to be shuttled on the bus... which becomes a bottle-neck and leads to slow down. This is because these scenes violate very clearly the principle of locality on which the architecture is based. Emulating this on the PC would be a frigging disaster. The X86 oeprates in the exact opposite manner. We like to have ultra large chunks of memory close to the processor (RAM) with a relatively slim bus (32 bits). If a game can fit in available RAM it will run very well and the location of assets will always be predictable. Emulating a PS2 program would likely lead to a serious bottleneck as the PC bus can simply not handle the large amounts of data being transferred across it. You might be able to get away with some cleverness where you cache the assets in main memory and redirect calls to retrieve those assets directly to RAM, but i'm not sure of what exactly that would take as I am not intimately familiar with the hardware itself. I think a more conforming architecture like the Gamecube (and of course the XBox) are more likely candidates for emulation. Nick Pleis "Game Programming for the PalmOS" Available February 2002 Edited by - enjolras on January 11, 2002 10:12:01 AM ### #12 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_* Guests - Reputation: Likes Posted 11 January 2002 - 04:01 AM quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster [quote]Original post by Anonymous Poster Where did you get this information, though? I''ve read multiple articles that say that sony has never lost money per unit on a console, and neither has nintendo. What? Do you really think something like the PS2 or GameCube costs LESS than$300 or, for crying out loud, $200 to make? Honestly. GameCube loses a lot of money off its system, but breaks even for the most part because everything about it is very small in proportion. That is, only if the games sell well enough. I haven''t seen too much of it to tell. PS2 has lost money as well-- a bad launch, an expensive system, few games, complaining developers, systems being smuggled into Iraq, a slumping economy in the States, September 11... Tell me they''ve had it easy. I''m the same AP you responded to. I happen to know a bit about what it costs to produce computer hardware. My company (among other things) produces console-ish standalone computers for use in industry. (Everything from one the size of a toaster down to systems that go on an expansion boards.) Believe me, it is very possible to produce this sort of hardware for$300 or $200 a unit when you factor in economies of scale. If you only knew the kinds of profit margins in this business... It''s true that it takes a while to recoup development and marketing costs, but there''s always a per-unit profit on hardware in the end. Now, I ask again, does anyone have a real article or figures to support this? I don''t take unthought opinions or proofs by blind assertion as real evidence. ### #13Jim_Ross Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 11 January 2002 - 05:52 AM quote: Original post by Enjolras The PS2 architecture would be very difficult to emulate for a more pertinent reason, however. It is more like a collection of different specialized processors (graphics, sound, etc...) with a fairly weak central CPU that acts more like a scheduler to keep all of the other stuff in sync. Emulating this on the PC would be a frigging disaster. The X86 oeprates in the exact opposite manner. We like to have ultra large chunks of memory close to the processor (RAM) with a relatively slim bus (32 bits). I think a more conforming architecture like the Gamecube (and of course the XBox) are more likely candidates for emulation. I''ve heard this argument before about emulating systems. The system architecture is too radically different from PC system architecture. The processors are different, the console has multiple processors where the PC has one main one. The whole concept of processing data is different. And I believed most of it, until an N64 emulator came out. How can a 64bit cpu be mimiced by a 32bit cpu? It is because an emulator _is_ the bridge between the two systems. The program is written to translate the differences between the two systems. Both systems, in this case, are Turing machines, and therefore can be emulated by the other. ### #14 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_* Guests - Reputation: Likes Posted 11 January 2002 - 07:18 AM It would not be terribly difficult to write a PS2 emulator on a PC, as emulators go. Far stranger architectures have been emulated. What would be difficult with today''s hardware would be writing a PS2 emulator than can run at the same speed as a hardware PS2. (One that you could reasonably play games on) Emulating 128 bits at 300Mhz would be pretty difficult on consumer grade intel hardware. ### #15JasperW Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 11 January 2002 - 08:27 AM quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster It would not be terribly difficult to write a PS2 emulator on a PC, as emulators go. Far stranger architectures have been emulated. What would be difficult with today''s hardware would be writing a PS2 emulator than can run at the same speed as a hardware PS2. (One that you could reasonably play games on) Emulating 128 bits at 300Mhz would be pretty difficult on consumer grade intel hardware. The CPU in reality isn''t 128 bits as the CPU bit size is defined by their integer size which is probably 32 bits as no higher classified CPU''s exist. It''s all just a marketing scam to sell more consoles. The 128 bits they''re talking about is the floating point bus which operates at 4 single precision (32 bits) floating point numbers at one time (4x4 matrices, you get the picture). Since the Pentium 4 has SSE2 which can also process 4 32 bit floating point numbers at any time, this wouldn''t really be the hardest part to emulate. Intel could even market it as a 128 bit CPU like Sony does Anyway I doubt the possibility of a PS2 emulator as described by reasons above, a completely different architecture. Jasper ### #16 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_* Guests - Reputation: Likes Posted 11 January 2002 - 08:46 AM quote: Original post by JasperW The CPU in reality isn''t 128 bits as the CPU bit size is defined by their integer size which is probably 32 bits as no higher classified CPU''s exist. Or really? What about http://www.intel.com/itanium/ Or http://www.compaq.com/alphaserver/index.html Or even http://www.mips.com All 64 bit... ### #17rileyriley Members - Reputation: 235 Like Likes Like Posted 11 January 2002 - 09:05 AM quote: Original post by Johnny_W Sony makes a PS2 for$500 (just a guess, I may be wrong, but I do know that they loose money from each system sold). They sell the system for $300 resulting in a loss of$200. If they dont sell that system, though, its a loss of $500. If they did make an emulator, they''d probably have to stop selling systems because no one would be buying them and they''d keep loosing hundreds of dollars for each emulator they sell. Now you see why companies don''t favor emulators? On its highest level, one would think by making an emulator, you''re saving Sony the$200 it looses on a system, but in reality, all you''d be doing is depriving Sony of $500. Geddit now? Assume for a second that it IS possible to make an emulator that runs well on the average PC. Then sony could STOP building the$500 machines, and start making $1 CDs carrying the emulating software. If they sold each CD for$50, that''d be a profit of $49, as opposed to a loss of$200.

My main point is just to highlight the fact that it is not immediately obvious that making emulators is a bad idea.

Of course, when you start considering things like widespread piracy, and the counter-productivity of forcing a machine to work in a way other than the way it was designed when the way it was designed is ALREADY capable of running some pretty fantastic games.. If I were Sony I wouldn''t want to release an emulator just so that I wouldn''t have to say I made a machine that cost me $500 and then wrote a program to do the same thing that cost me essentially nothing to duplicate. ### #18Enjolras Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 14 January 2002 - 05:01 AM I am not arguing that it is not possible to emulate a PS2. I AM arguing that it is especially difficult to imagine that the PS2 could be efficiently emulated on the PC and that is a BIG difference. As my post indicated, a variety of architecture reasons exist to make the PS2 a rather poor choice for emulation.. I did not say it was impossible, as a matter of fact it would not be terribly difficult. However, I do not think that the PC can efficiently emulate the PS2 for simple memory bottleneck issues. The PS2 is designed with a high bandwidth bus and the PC simply isn''t. I''m sorry if my post was unclear... ### #19Dave Astle Senior Staff - Reputation: 2307 Like Likes Like Posted 14 January 2002 - 09:21 AM quote: Original post by rileyriley Assume for a second that it IS possible to make an emulator that runs well on the average PC. Then sony could STOP building the$500 machines, and start making $1 CDs carrying the emulating software. If they sold each CD for$50, that''d be a profit of $49, as opposed to a loss of$200.

My main point is just to highlight the fact that it is not immediately obvious that making emulators is a bad idea.

Let''s assume for a moment that they could come up with an emulator that runs fast enough on the average PC. Suddenly, sales of the PS2 would drop (probably not to nothing, but there would be a big decrease). Within a year or two, there would be more people out there running the emulator than those who actually own the console, possibly by a big margin. So, say my company is developing games for the PS2 (which happens to be the case, but that''s irrelevant). I''m no longer really making games for the PS2, I''m making games for people who are running a PS2 emulator on their PC. Why, then, should I bother developing for the PS2 at all? I could just develop for the PC instead. Sure, I''d lose those potential customers that still have just the console, but I''d pick up PC users who don''t have the console or emulator. What''s more, I''d no longer have to pay a licensing fee to Sony to release games for their system. Pretty soon, the number of games coming out for the PS2 would slow to a trickle, as would Sony''s profits.

So, there''s another reason emulators are a bad idea in their eyes.

### #20jenova  Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 January 2002 - 09:29 AM

Myopic Rhino: while i agree with you on that point. i do one potential benefit of emulators. a) it allows hobbyist and newbie programmers a virtual platform as a stepping stone to understanding console programming (which is little different than developing for the PC). i personally coded a MIPS R3xxx emulator and this helped me understand the MIPS architecture a lot better, as i did not have a MIPS platform to program on before i hax0r'd my PS2.

it's easy to be heavy when you're on the inside, but when you're not...

To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.

Edit: also, i would like to add that i don't think it would IMPOSSIBLE to emulate the PS2 at all. in fact i had the basic CPU and vu0 COP2 instructions emulated fairly quickly. with techniques like "dynamic compilation" i could see 10-20 fps very possible with a high-end PC (P4 1.5GHz+, Geforce3, etc). of course this is MHO.

Edited by - jenova on January 14, 2002 4:34:20 PM

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS