gbadev.org forum archive

This is a read-only mirror of the content originally found on forum.gbadev.org (now offline), salvaged from Wayback machine copies. A new forum can be found here.

DS development > Revealing PSP interview

#21797 - Kleevah - Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:16 am

GameInformer recently had an interesting interview with the CEO Of SCEA Kaz Hirai regarding the PSP. And it even has som nice facts about PSP's batterylife:

Quote:
GameInformer: One thing I was a little confused about in the presentation was the battery life. At first you said ten hours and then you seemed to say it could be as short as two and I just wanted to clarify...

Kaz Hirai: Battery life is one of these things where if you state a number then everybody's satisfied. The only problem, of course, is it never matches what you state. But if you don't state a number then it's like, "What's the battery life?" So it's a continuous Catch-22. And that's especially prevalent with the PlayStation Portable because it plays various entertainment content. Again, if you're just listening to music with no visuals at all then it should last, as I said yesterday, about eight to ten hours just like an iPod would. If you are playing a game that is consistently cycling through and putting the CPU to good use, yeah, battery life is going to be shorter. Maybe about two and a half, three hours.

Hell, my GameGear can do better then that!
Read the whole interview here.
_________________
"Duct tape is just like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...."

#21804 - dagamer34 - Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:31 pm

Kleevah wrote:
GameInformer recently had an interesting interview with the CEO Of SCEA Kaz Hirai regarding the PSP. And it even has som nice facts about PSP's batterylife:

Quote:
GameInformer: One thing I was a little confused about in the presentation was the battery life. At first you said ten hours and then you seemed to say it could be as short as two and I just wanted to clarify...

Kaz Hirai: Battery life is one of these things where if you state a number then everybody's satisfied. The only problem, of course, is it never matches what you state. But if you don't state a number then it's like, "What's the battery life?" So it's a continuous Catch-22. And that's especially prevalent with the PlayStation Portable because it plays various entertainment content. Again, if you're just listening to music with no visuals at all then it should last, as I said yesterday, about eight to ten hours just like an iPod would. If you are playing a game that is consistently cycling through and putting the CPU to good use, yeah, battery life is going to be shorter. Maybe about two and a half, three hours.

Hell, my GameGear can do better then that!
Read the whole interview here.


I think he was referring to the games that constantly stream data of the disc for dynamic loading like Jak II and the GTA series. We are going to see more loading screens compared to the PS2 even if the amount of memory is the same. And that would be the least amount of battery life for the system. But chances are, you won't be able to get more than 6 hours.
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(

#21812 - mtg101 - Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:36 pm

dagamer34's current .sig is:
while (your_engine >= my_engine)
my_engine++;

Could I humbly suggest that dagamer34's .sig would be more efficient if he had:
while(your_engine >= ++my_engine);
_________________
---
Speaker for the Dead

#21819 - ampz - Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:20 pm

mtg101 wrote:
dagamer34's current .sig is:
while (your_engine >= my_engine)
my_engine++;

Could I humbly suggest that dagamer34's .sig would be more efficient if he had:
while(your_engine >= ++my_engine);

It would not be equivalent.

#21821 - mtg101 - Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:31 pm

ampz wrote:
mtg101 wrote:
dagamer34's current .sig is:
while (your_engine >= my_engine)
my_engine++;

Could I humbly suggest that dagamer34's .sig would be more efficient if he had:
while(your_engine >= ++my_engine);

It would not be equivalent.


Hmmm. I guess you're right. I think the equivilent would be:
while(your_engine >= my_engine++);

But I think my original version would give the same results but with one less loop.
_________________
---
Speaker for the Dead

#21826 - dagamer34 - Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:42 am

mtg101 wrote:
ampz wrote:
mtg101 wrote:
dagamer34's current .sig is:
while (your_engine >= my_engine)
my_engine++;

Could I humbly suggest that dagamer34's .sig would be more efficient if he had:
while(your_engine >= ++my_engine);

It would not be equivalent.


Hmmm. I guess you're right. I think the equivilent would be:
while(your_engine >= my_engine++);

But I think my original version would give the same results but with one less loop.

My engine is still better than yours!!!

Actually, I copied it from someone off of gamedev.net, can't remember who though. Just like in the business world, don't fix it unless its broken and my sig. is running pretty smoothly right now! :P
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(

#21833 - ampz - Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:54 am

mtg101 wrote:
ampz wrote:
mtg101 wrote:
dagamer34's current .sig is:
while (your_engine >= my_engine)
my_engine++;

Could I humbly suggest that dagamer34's .sig would be more efficient if he had:
while(your_engine >= ++my_engine);

It would not be equivalent.


Hmmm. I guess you're right. I think the equivilent would be:
while(your_engine >= my_engine++);

No, it is still not equivalent.
Consider the case when your_engine is greater than my_engine from the very beginning. That specific case breaks both your suggestions.

#21837 - mtg101 - Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:17 pm

ampz wrote:
mtg101 wrote:
ampz wrote:
mtg101 wrote:
dagamer34's current .sig is:
while (your_engine >= my_engine)
my_engine++;

Could I humbly suggest that dagamer34's .sig would be more efficient if he had:
while(your_engine >= ++my_engine);

It would not be equivalent.


Hmmm. I guess you're right. I think the equivilent would be:
while(your_engine >= my_engine++);

No, it is still not equivalent.
Consider the case when your_engine is greater than my_engine from the very beginning. That specific case breaks both your suggestions.


Do you mean when my_engine is greater than your_engine to begin with? If so, yeah you've got me. In this case my_engine is incremented when there's no need to.

Maybe "my_engine |= -1".

Or maybe I should never have mentioned it in the first place... :)
_________________
---
Speaker for the Dead

#21848 - Miked0801 - Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm

Of course, my engine define is:

myEngine; yourEngine;

Solves a lot of, err "Size" wars :)