More likely he is trying to hedge for the future. With Sonys' projected losses for the next year, and his division just bleeding money all over the place, there has to be a fear that when the new Eurpean CEO (not Japanesse) talks of cutting "sacred lambs" the PS group just might find significant cuts and closures in it's future.
- Status
I think SONY is saying that this upward curve in development is a plus for developers especially in terms of sequels. Each new game will look better and better as that developer gains more and more knowledge of the "art" of programing for the PS3. So for instance UNCHARTED 2 should look better than the first UNCHARTED, etc.
It also means that some of what will be the best games are yet to come. The really good games will need a long development time. Hence this extends the life of the console.
Otherwise we'll end up in the realm of PC gaming where you have to buy the newest $400+ video card (or console) once a year just to play the newest "best" looking games.
Do we really want that in the console world?
Looks at the state of PC gaming now and the answer is clear. No we don't want that.
You could argue the decline of PC gaming is due to circumvention of copy protection and thus lost sales. I say it's all about people not wanting to constantly upgrade. Now that consoles have matured to where they can give the same level of graphics the PC game experience is highly diminished.
Although one could argue that expecting a 10 year life span from a console is perhaps asking a bit too much.
It also means that some of what will be the best games are yet to come. The really good games will need a long development time. Hence this extends the life of the console.
Otherwise we'll end up in the realm of PC gaming where you have to buy the newest $400+ video card (or console) once a year just to play the newest "best" looking games.
Do we really want that in the console world?
Looks at the state of PC gaming now and the answer is clear. No we don't want that.
You could argue the decline of PC gaming is due to circumvention of copy protection and thus lost sales. I say it's all about people not wanting to constantly upgrade. Now that consoles have matured to where they can give the same level of graphics the PC game experience is highly diminished.
Although one could argue that expecting a 10 year life span from a console is perhaps asking a bit too much.
As an addition to my earlier comment... I have both systems and I'm glad I have them both. Both have exclusive games that are high on my list of favorites. (LBP, Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, and Fable 2, Forza 2). I'm not one to slam on the PS3 because I think it's a solid system... with a LOT of media capabilities beyond games that make it a must have for my house. However... I AM critical of some of Sony's design and marketing decisions - because I think they're going to turn out to be bad calls.
I have both. I use the PS3 for Blu-Ray mainly. My Xbox is definately doing the heavy lifting though. I play it constantly. Most of my friends have Xboxes so I buy the Xbox version of online oriented games. Also because I want the achievements I get the Xbox version of cross-platform games. Essentially that means I only play exclusives on PS3. I have played Ratchet and Clank and will eventually get Resistance 2 when I am done with what I am playing now. Technically speaking, I don't care that the PS3 is supposedly more advanced since it does not show up in the games. That being said I am starting to despise microsofts incompetence and disregard for their customer's. I have had a Zune , an Xbox and an Xbox 360 fail on me. When my xbox failed I lost approximately $100 in XBLA games. Add on to that the fact the Microsoft nickle and dimes you. Why do I have to pay $100 for Wifi? Its included in PS3 and Wii. Don't get me started on the Memory. You can get 2Gb cards for the price of a 256MB Xbox memory card.
[citation][nom]Buddakwon[/nom]I think the console is fantastic, and having it hard to develop games is awesome. That means developers need to bring the best to the table, and not these crappy games. 360 might have more games, but who honestly wants to play 3/4 of them. Good job Sony keep making those developers bring there A game.[/citation]
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Thank you sir, may I have another? lol
So you are saying that instead of spending time on story, polish, controls.....you know, the things that make a game good.....that you'd have them bogged down on technical issues like creating their own support, and tools etc?
And since this mysterious "power" that hasn't been tapped is hidden, where is the drive from developers to tap it? I remember quite well from the last generation the port job most publishers did, to not take advantage of the original Xbox (graphics, HD, music etc)
Get used to it if things stay the course.
Take off the blinders there. You can like a company and a product without having to blindly clapping everytime they open their mouth.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Thank you sir, may I have another? lol
So you are saying that instead of spending time on story, polish, controls.....you know, the things that make a game good.....that you'd have them bogged down on technical issues like creating their own support, and tools etc?
And since this mysterious "power" that hasn't been tapped is hidden, where is the drive from developers to tap it? I remember quite well from the last generation the port job most publishers did, to not take advantage of the original Xbox (graphics, HD, music etc)
Get used to it if things stay the course.
Take off the blinders there. You can like a company and a product without having to blindly clapping everytime they open their mouth.
JeanLuc
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2002
- 64
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]inn0v8[/nom]For the few THAT DO remember, there was once a gaming platform named Saturn that had tons of 32-bit processors and was hard to program for, similar to the PS3...Microsoft the creator of DirectX the same DirectX that developers create games on.Simple point, program for a technically more powerful platform (ps3) but loose hair in the process by having to learn how to program each area of the ps3, then convert API calls to PS3 language. Or program for the underpowered 360 but gain API flexibility, Microsoft new what they were doing when they assembled the 360 hardware, they knew it wasnt going to be the best hardware, but they also knew they had decades of software experience on any hardware manufacturer...Both Sony and M$ are relatively new to the game industry, however Sony seems to be the only one currently forgetting History, and never forget that "history always repeats itself"...R.I.P. SEGA...[/citation]
The Saturn problems weren't just it the fact it had dual RISC processors but it's video chipset you inferior to the Playstation's as well. Look at games like Wipeout on the PSX and compare it to the Saturn version most of the graphical effects are missing or don't look half as good.
I think to much emphasis is being applied to the Cell BE chip, even if you could take full advantage of it its not going to able compensate for the video chipset. I suspect the Xbox 720 will have a video based around a 4870X2 or more likely a 5870X2, now since fans of the Cell BE like to boost about the Cells GFLOPS a 5870X2 is going to have around 3TFlops of performance just for rendering graphics.
Assuming Sony will stick with the PS3 until 2014 (the year mentioned in the article) the PS3 games will look very dated. Remember it's not just the Gflops but all the additional advances in technology that brings things like HDR and shaders etc to games.
My guess would be Sony will launch the PS4 within year of the next Xbox, Sony are not going to run with the PS3 as it's main console for years.
The Saturn problems weren't just it the fact it had dual RISC processors but it's video chipset you inferior to the Playstation's as well. Look at games like Wipeout on the PSX and compare it to the Saturn version most of the graphical effects are missing or don't look half as good.
I think to much emphasis is being applied to the Cell BE chip, even if you could take full advantage of it its not going to able compensate for the video chipset. I suspect the Xbox 720 will have a video based around a 4870X2 or more likely a 5870X2, now since fans of the Cell BE like to boost about the Cells GFLOPS a 5870X2 is going to have around 3TFlops of performance just for rendering graphics.
Assuming Sony will stick with the PS3 until 2014 (the year mentioned in the article) the PS3 games will look very dated. Remember it's not just the Gflops but all the additional advances in technology that brings things like HDR and shaders etc to games.
My guess would be Sony will launch the PS4 within year of the next Xbox, Sony are not going to run with the PS3 as it's main console for years.
I see, so the slant is in. The gist of the article is : We had a choice, make a simple system that's easier to program and has a well defined performance, or make a very high performance system that is more complex, but has more potential if developers work at it. We chose the high performance route, which means that the system is more complex. But we think this is good because over the life of the system, programmers will find ways to get more out of the system, which is good for consumers as it shows incremental improvement year over year.
It doesn't sound like Kaz is saying "We made it hard to piss people off." which is apparently what the author and many commenters here are reading into his comments. It's more like "We made as high a performance system as we could, knowing it would be more complicated(difficult) to work with."
More performance = more complex to work with. Less performance = less complex to work with.
Without the fanboy slant this article could have been an interesting study into the design decisions of PS3, as it is, it's just fanboy rant.
It doesn't sound like Kaz is saying "We made it hard to piss people off." which is apparently what the author and many commenters here are reading into his comments. It's more like "We made as high a performance system as we could, knowing it would be more complicated(difficult) to work with."
More performance = more complex to work with. Less performance = less complex to work with.
Without the fanboy slant this article could have been an interesting study into the design decisions of PS3, as it is, it's just fanboy rant.
See, it does not matter how supercomputery the Cell processor is. The graphics cards in the 360 and PS3 are very similar and to a point will be the limiting factor in what can be done.
These consoles could have 40,000 cell processors but if you pair them with a 9800 pro you are going to have a bottleneck. I think the 360 paired the technology together very well where sony put high end processor tech alongside a 3 generation old graphics card that causes them to lose money. I will be playing my Xbox720 when it comes out, for probably the same price as the PS3 will be selling for around that time.
The BR player is a nice bonus and the only reason I will consider buying a PS3, off craigslist, if under $200.
These consoles could have 40,000 cell processors but if you pair them with a 9800 pro you are going to have a bottleneck. I think the 360 paired the technology together very well where sony put high end processor tech alongside a 3 generation old graphics card that causes them to lose money. I will be playing my Xbox720 when it comes out, for probably the same price as the PS3 will be selling for around that time.
The BR player is a nice bonus and the only reason I will consider buying a PS3, off craigslist, if under $200.
JeanLuc
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2002
- 64
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]See, it does not matter how supercomputery the Cell processor is. The graphics cards in the 360 and PS3 are very similar and to a point will be the limiting factor in what can be done.These consoles could have 40,000 cell processors but if you pair them with a 9800 pro you are going to have a bottleneck. [/citation]
I think the plan was with the powerful Cell chips was that some of the graphical work could be of loaded to the CPU.
I think the plan was with the powerful Cell chips was that some of the graphical work could be of loaded to the CPU.
baov,
That's exactly what these turds are saying. That's why I don't own a PS3 and haven't bought a SONY product in ages. I used to think they were the bomb until I realized that all they're doing is jacking up prices to make their products look exclusive. Yeah their products look nicer but functionally are no better and sometimes worse than the competition.
Such a selfish, idiotic idea, to create a steep learning curve for developers for no reason other than to lengthen the product's lifespan. I hope they go under.
That's exactly what these turds are saying. That's why I don't own a PS3 and haven't bought a SONY product in ages. I used to think they were the bomb until I realized that all they're doing is jacking up prices to make their products look exclusive. Yeah their products look nicer but functionally are no better and sometimes worse than the competition.
Such a selfish, idiotic idea, to create a steep learning curve for developers for no reason other than to lengthen the product's lifespan. I hope they go under.
hakesterman
Distinguished
- Oct 6, 2008
- 276
- 0
- 18,930
This is a sad and silly Story. But in the
end the games are comming out just fine and
they all look really nice. I own thirteen
games now and there as good if not better than
anything you see on a Xbox360. Not only that
but you get a bluray player included so your
ready for 1080p awsome HD movies. This is by
far hands down the best system for the price. The
only reason it's behind in sales is because it was
the last system to upgrade. People were in such a hurry
to upgrade to next generation hardware that Sony got burnt
on that first wave of buyers. People would be Silly to
buy any other system now, the games just keep comming and
keep getting better and better.
end the games are comming out just fine and
they all look really nice. I own thirteen
games now and there as good if not better than
anything you see on a Xbox360. Not only that
but you get a bluray player included so your
ready for 1080p awsome HD movies. This is by
far hands down the best system for the price. The
only reason it's behind in sales is because it was
the last system to upgrade. People were in such a hurry
to upgrade to next generation hardware that Sony got burnt
on that first wave of buyers. People would be Silly to
buy any other system now, the games just keep comming and
keep getting better and better.
Thehighlander:
No, that's not what he said. Read the line:
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
This does not mean they chose the difficult, yet highly advanced technological path vs. the simple, less advanced path. This means that they ONLY chose to make it difficult for NO OTHER REASON than to spread out games so that the console would last longer. It makes sense from a business perspective. The first games that come out will stink, but the graphics leap from PS2 to PS3 helps sell the console to early adopters. Later on, as the platform matures, developers begin to get familiar with the software (as opposed to earlier) and develop better games.
A totally sleazy way to artificially extend the product's life cycle. This can backfire on them too as the number of games that come out that s*ck will cause people to get turned off by the console. But in truth, what do they care? You already bought the dang machine.
No, that's not what he said. Read the line:
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
This does not mean they chose the difficult, yet highly advanced technological path vs. the simple, less advanced path. This means that they ONLY chose to make it difficult for NO OTHER REASON than to spread out games so that the console would last longer. It makes sense from a business perspective. The first games that come out will stink, but the graphics leap from PS2 to PS3 helps sell the console to early adopters. Later on, as the platform matures, developers begin to get familiar with the software (as opposed to earlier) and develop better games.
A totally sleazy way to artificially extend the product's life cycle. This can backfire on them too as the number of games that come out that s*ck will cause people to get turned off by the console. But in truth, what do they care? You already bought the dang machine.
captaincharisma
Distinguished
- Oct 13, 2004
- 1,844
- 0
- 20,060
I just hope sony will go threw with lowering the price of the PS3 because if they don't lower it threy will not sell many more consoles in this economy. hell nintendo said it is going to lower the price of the wii soon and not like sony where it looks like they are lowering the price for the PS3 when they are just lowering the price so it can get rid of discontinued models
Christopher1
Distinguished
- Aug 29, 2006
- 197
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]sacre[/nom]Hah, imo, they took the wrong approach.I mean, evidance lies in the numbers as we discuss.. PS3 is what, third? out of the 3 that are out there. For one, why make it difficult? You WANT all the subpar games + big games on your console.. because if you don't have the subpar games, what do you play between the larger more intense games?Play a big game...wait 8 months..play another big game..wait 2 months.. etc..orPlay big game, play 50 mini games, play big game, play 55 mini games..Really I don't see their logic behind this, I think they're just making excuses.[/citation]
Bingo! That is exactly right... I have played the 'sub-par' games on every single console I have owned while waiting for the 'good games', which made the companies in question get more money out of me.
Bingo! That is exactly right... I have played the 'sub-par' games on every single console I have owned while waiting for the 'good games', which made the companies in question get more money out of me.
i have a PS3 and i love it. i think they meant to say, "more complex," here. so take the 360, for example. does Gears 2 look all that different than Gears 1? no. barely at all. but look at Resistance 1 and then Resistance 2 on the PS3. the sequel is a HUGE jump. and people that are saying the PS3 is getting sub-par games needs to play them. Ratchet and Clank, Resistance 1 & 2, Motorstorm 1 & 2, Little Big Planet, Uncharted. . . Even 3rd party games like Burnout Paradise, Assassin's Creed, and Fallout 3 play and look beautiful. If sub par games are being referred to like ones that are released en mass to every console out there, then i can't take the excuses from those 3rd party companies. if Burnout Paradise looks and plays best on PS3 and is still good on 360, then what's EA's excuse for Madden chugging along? Bioshock on PS3 is great, so what's the excuse for the FEAR 2 demo running terribly? things are better than we started, though, and that's what gives me hope, not to mention games like Resistance 2 and Uncharted 2 looking bounds better than their still-great originals. on 360, the simplicity is great for the home-made game stuff, but when i doubt that Gears 3 will look all that much better than the 2 before, where does that console go if all it does it step sideways?
zak_mckraken
Distinguished
- Jan 16, 2004
- 868
- 0
- 18,930
It's perfectly normal to make work harder for the people working for you. I do it with my employees all the time! It stimulates them and it really exposes their potential. Sometimes, when they produce better results than expected, I hit them with a stick anyway! This way, I make sure that they know that even though it's hard working for me, it just shows how much they have to offer.
Seriously, does that make sense to you?
Seriously, does that make sense to you?
This is almost as bad as when they came out saying that their processor is going to ship with dead cells, but don't worry, they intentionally gave it more than it needed so that they could ship with dead cells, but no less than six will work. Wait, what? But when they put up the spec sheet, they always say it has eight. Funny.
Now they're saying that they intentionally made it difficult to program for? I'm starting to think Sony has issues admitting its screwed up.
Now they're saying that they intentionally made it difficult to program for? I'm starting to think Sony has issues admitting its screwed up.
VorlonKosh
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2009
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]jwl3[/nom]Thehighlander:No, that's not what he said. Read the line:"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.This does not mean they chose the difficult, yet highly advanced technological path vs. the simple, less advanced path. This means that they ONLY chose to make it difficult for NO OTHER REASON than to spread out games so that the console would last longer. It makes sense from a business perspective. The first games that come out will stink, but the graphics leap from PS2 to PS3 helps sell the console to early adopters. Later on, as the platform matures, developers begin to get familiar with the software (as opposed to earlier) and develop better games.A totally sleazy way to artificially extend the product's life cycle. This can backfire on them too as the number of games that come out that s*ck will cause people to get turned off by the console. But in truth, what do they care? You already bought the dang machine.[/citation]
jwl3,
Obviously you do not have much experience in programming. As several other posters have noted, software programming relies on hardware architecture. If you design a new console centered around a new multiprocessing/parallel processing core (ie. the cell processor), software development tools and programming techniques must change as well. Same reason why although most computers nowadays have multi-cores (ie. Core2, CoreQuad, etc), relatively few programs other than very high end, expensive, and specialized ones actually take full advantage of the multiple cores. This will change as the software developers "catch up" to writing multi-threaded programs in the Windows OS. According to your logic, Intel, AMD, and MS all "ONLY chose to make it difficult for NO OTHER REASON than to spread out 'software' so that the 'PC' would last longer." I rest my case.
jwl3,
Obviously you do not have much experience in programming. As several other posters have noted, software programming relies on hardware architecture. If you design a new console centered around a new multiprocessing/parallel processing core (ie. the cell processor), software development tools and programming techniques must change as well. Same reason why although most computers nowadays have multi-cores (ie. Core2, CoreQuad, etc), relatively few programs other than very high end, expensive, and specialized ones actually take full advantage of the multiple cores. This will change as the software developers "catch up" to writing multi-threaded programs in the Windows OS. According to your logic, Intel, AMD, and MS all "ONLY chose to make it difficult for NO OTHER REASON than to spread out 'software' so that the 'PC' would last longer." I rest my case.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Solved
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Phone stuck at boot screen logo after having 99% disk space usage
- Started by desbest
- Replies: 5
-
Question Does Tidal provide Audiobooks for uses?- Started by pinkiena
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
-
-
Question Best Wireless Earbuds for iPhone & Android – Expert Review- Started by anjelinaw3
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter