id Says Rage on 360 Runs Faster Than PS3, Brings the Ruckus

[Nutcase]

With that I can say with confidence, CPU is not such a limit on frame-rate, in fact Carmack explicitly stated that it was the rasteriser (i.e. GPU, he uses the older term because he has been in the business for so long) that was the problem,

A guy whose day job is engine technology doesn't call GPUs "rasterizers".

You say that but how about you actually read the article this thread is based on, there is a quote attributed to him he actually uses the word:

John Carmack admitted. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that..."

What I said is that your interpretation is wrong. No one working in engines would mix a rasteriser and a GPU. What he's referring to can be either the relevant part of the GPU, the relevant part of their own engine, or more likely the combination. Certainly he feels there's something significant to improve in the code since he expects to coax double the current speed out of it.

You also said: "Bottom line, when some calculations need to be done, it doesn't matter where they are done. It matters even less in a high-bandwidth architecture like the CBE."

Well I think my previous post where the link showed Crysis being rendered on the most advanced CPUs yet being outperformed on the cheapest GPUs by a factor of 15 show it DOES matter where. In fact it is borne out in this precise scenario, RAGE is under-performing on PS3 by 30-40 fps, running at as low as 33% the speed of 360 or PC.

There is no "most advanced CPU", but a range of chips from good to bad for every specific purpose. A Cell is good at working with large masses of vector data, and bad at compiling software. A Core i7 is good at compiling software, but loses to Cell at working on vector data.

Whether e.g. physics, transform and lighting are done on the chip labeled "CPU" or the chip labeled "GPU" is irrelevant as long as the overall capacity of the system is good enough to get the job done. A Cell with a weaker GPU can match a weaker CPU with a stronger GPU since it doesn't need to offload as much work.

And it is not id Software's fault that PS3 can't handle an advanced engine. Your proposal of using a different TYPE of engine is unrealistic as for the most PS3 exclusive games they use fundamentally the same type of engine with graphical COMPROMISES like the low res textures in KZ2, while pushing PS3's strengths like certain lighting effects.

In the same arbitrary fashion as with processors, you hold a PC/360-optimized engine as a universal standard and direction of "advancement". It makes just as much sense to say KZ2 is the standard, and a 360-optimized engine makes COMPROMISES like using bad lighting.

 

[Fearzone]

What has Id done of significance on the PS3?

It's a learning curve, that's all.

Any maybe they simply don't want to make games that use the PS3's strengths. That's their business. As for me, Quake 2 was great but, not being a shooters fan, I haven't bought an Id game since, nor any I know of that uses an Id engine, and there is a good likelihood I won't buy this one. (EDIT: oh wait, I did buy the orignal Half-life which used the Quake 2 engine.)

 

[AceDiamond]

Good work Sony! ID has just announced that the PS3 is more expensive than either PC or XBox to develop for. Not that we didn't already know that. My hope is that developers stop wasting their time on the PS3.

Yes. Screw everyone who didn't buy the console I wanted and forget trying to expand to know new technologies. Let's just make a blanket statement about a console that's selling less than the others.

And of course the Ps3 doesn't have a single good game, because they're all wastes of time. Of course.

Wow cause that's totally what he said verbatim. No wait that's what your mind thought it was.

I apologize, but when did you suddenly become an expert on games?

I dunno, when did you? I mean this argument doesn't exactly work unless you are an expert on games. And even then it just sounds elitist. Now granted his argument wasn't that great but in a time of rising game costs, it makes sense to not have grandiose budgets spent on game development for a console that is only now dragging itself out of the massive losses its incurred since inception

 

[Jumplion]

I dunno, when did you? I mean this argument doesn't exactly work unless you are an expert on games. And even then it just sounds elitist. Now granted his argument wasn't that great but in a time of rising game costs, it makes sense to not have grandiose budgets spent on game development for a console that is only now dragging itself out of the massive losses its incurred since inception

People are just overblowing this out of proportion, name me one significant thing that id has ever done with the PS3 in this whole entire time. All this is, is id going through a learning curve over a system they have never had any experience with, isn't optimized for their engines, and a completely new experience with. If Carmack is as much of a god as everyone says, this shouldn't be a problem. People are just jumping the gun about "CPUs!" "GPUs!" "Rasterizers!" and "Bannanas!", I doubt Rage is even halfway finished. As Fearzone above you said;

What has Id done of significance on the PS3?

It's a learning curve, that's all.

Any maybe they simply don't want to make games that use the PS3's strengths. That's their business. As for me, Quake 2 was great but, not being a shooters fan, I haven't bought an Id game since, nor any I know of that uses an Id engine, and there is a good likelihood I won't buy this one. (EDIT: oh wait, I did buy the orignal Half-life which used the Quake 2 engine.)

 

[Pendragon9]

Good work Sony! ID has just announced that the PS3 is more expensive than either PC or XBox to develop for. Not that we didn't already know that. My hope is that developers stop wasting their time on the PS3.

Yes. Screw everyone who didn't buy the console I wanted and forget trying to expand to know new technologies. Let's just make a blanket statement about a console that's selling less than the others.

And of course the Ps3 doesn't have a single good game, because they're all wastes of time. Of course.

Wow cause that's totally what he said verbatim. No wait that's what your mind thought it was.

I apologize, but when did you suddenly become an expert on games?

I dunno, when did you? I mean this argument doesn't exactly work unless you are an expert on games. And even then it just sounds elitist. Now granted his argument wasn't that great but in a time of rising game costs, it makes sense to not have grandiose budgets spent on game development for a console that is only now dragging itself out of the massive losses its incurred since inception

Wow. I'm not surprised someone took my post as an attack.

Look, the point is that yet again, someone calls the PS3 a waste of time and tries to pass it off as fact.

The point is he's wrong. Plain and simple. If it was a waste of time, there wouldn't be one. single. game on it.

Stop defending fanboy posts already. And if you think it wasn't reeking of ps3 hater, then tell me how the statement "My hope is that developers stop wasting their time on the PS3." is meant to not offend.

 

[iggyus]

Jesus Christ. This will be an epic fanboy war. But it doesnt surprise me, coding on PS3 is like attempting to solve a puzzle that shoots lasers and blows accid in your face every 3 second while spikes errupt from it

 

[Snotnarok]

This isn't to knock anyone or whatever but, saying "Knowing the PS3 is harder to develop for shouldn't they start with that?" is fine in theory but why would a company want to do the harder route, when developing for other platforms is easier? Sony chose to make the decisions that led it to be a pain in the ass to develop games for, they should be responsible for making it easier, how? I don't know.

I've had a lot of trouble with multiplatform games when choosing the PS3 version, it's not to say the PS3 isn't a capable system, it's fantastic in a lot of ways and has fantastic hardware but I'd praise it's multiplatform titles like I would praise the 360's red ring rate. They have either worse resolution or framerate issues (I'm using Assassins Creed/ GTAIV and Armored Core 4 for reference here). PS3 exclusives blow most games out of the water in many ways, so I know the system is capable of doing insane things, but it seems only games directly being developed for the PS3, and the PS3 ONLY is when it really goes nuts.

I'm not trying to directly compare here, I'm a fan of a lot of games on various systems, but I've been let down by some of the issues listed here in a few games.

 

[Dommyboy]

They just need to code the worker threads to run on the SPEs, rest assured ID will have it running at 60fps by the time it's released. PS3's graphics system is only slightly slower than the 360s after they do a little reworking it should be nearly as good as the 360 version.

PS, PS3 cell processors have 6 SPEs available to the programmer. Only 1 is disabled and 1 is used by the OS (of the 8).

How come one is disabled?

 

[Treblaine]

This is John Carmack, the (alleged) god of programing.
I'd imagine that Rage isn't even halfway completed yet.
id Software has never developed a PS3 game in their entire careers.
As godly as Carmack is with programing, we can't assume they'll be gods of the PS3 overnight.
All he's said is that the CPU or something is about the same, and one is a little slower I believe. Nothing about costs or expensiveness.

Let me highlight one of my favorite points; id Software has never developed a PS3 game in their entire careers.

I find it funny how everyone is trying to put the blame solely on Sony. If Rage is crap on PS3, it should mostly be id's fault hard/new software to work with or not. Obviously, some of it goes to Sony, but we can hardly blame id for having trouble on a platform they've never developed for.

John Carmack has developed games for the most convoluted and obscure systems, his amazing skill comes not from excelling on one system but how he is able to eke out maximum performance from almost any system, from the deeply flawed Atari Jaguar to a smorgasbord of mobile phones to even getting 3D games to work on gameboy advance.

Yes this is his first foray into PS3, but this is also the first time his team is developing on 360, since in the past id Software just focused on the PC version and had a third party handle porting it to consoles. Rage has been built from the ground up, by id software, for 360, PS3 and PC.

Again, in parallel development, the PS3 needs more time, money and gives less performance, as little as 1/3 the performance.

 

[Treblaine]

What I said is that your interpretation is wrong. No one working in engines would mix a rasteriser and a GPU. What he's referring to can be either the relevant part of the GPU, the relevant part of their own engine, or more likely the combination. Certainly he feels there's something significant to improve in the code since he expects to coax double the current speed out of it.

This is not the firs time John Carmack has used the word "rasteriser" when referring to rendering of graphics when most other developers use the broader term GPU. In the way Carmack uses it it is much more generalised.

There is no "most advanced CPU", but a range of chips from good to bad for every specific purpose. A Cell is good at working with large masses of vector data, and bad at compiling software. A Core i7 is good at compiling software, but loses to Cell at working on vector data.

Whether e.g. physics, transform and lighting are done on the chip labeled "CPU" or the chip labeled "GPU" is irrelevant as long as the overall capacity of the system is good enough to get the job done. A Cell with a weaker GPU can match a weaker CPU with a stronger GPU since it doesn't need to offload as much work.

Emphasis mine.
If that is so, why is the PS3 version of Rage running at One Third (33%) the speed of the Xbox 360 and PC version? In fact even PS3 exclusives, that are actually produced by Sony suffer from the same low and inconsistent frame-rate and screen tearing like the most recent Infamous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XI3EjBlyYA&eurl

Even dipping as low as 15fps, for a 1st party game developed 3 years into the console cycle... we have a problem. It is just John Carmack is one of the developers with the cojones to say what the problem is. I think we can expect Sony to give him a lot of shit in the future for "bad mouthing" their console.

And it is not id Software's fault that PS3 can't handle an advanced engine. Your proposal of using a different TYPE of engine is unrealistic as for the most PS3 exclusive games they use fundamentally the same type of engine with graphical COMPROMISES like the low res textures in KZ2, while pushing PS3's strengths like certain lighting effects.

In the same arbitrary fashion as with processors, you hold a PC/360-optimized engine as a universal standard and direction of "advancement". It makes just as much sense to say KZ2 is the standard, and a 360-optimized engine makes COMPROMISES like using bad lighting.[/quote]

RAGE was never PC or 360 optimised, it was not just ported to PS3, it was built for the ground up on each system in parallel.

id software knew what it wanted the game to look and play like yet PS3 could not reach that standard. Why? Carmack has explained why. There cannot be one standard for some games and another lower standard for PS3.

 

[Dys]

Spec wise the PS3 is absolutely more powerful than a 360

It really isn't. That's among the most baseless claims people on the internet ever make. This generation has different hardware (as oppose to ps2 and xbox having identical GPUs, ram and very similar processers).

This, of course, is different "absolutely more powerful", an example of a minor hardware victory for the xbox 360 (over the ps3) is the (overheating prone) GPUs, which are modelled off radeon 2900 architecture where the (relatively stable) ps3 GPU is modelled off the older, less powerful Nvidia 7800 chipset. The ps3 has a more powerful CPU than the xbox 360, and anyone with half a clue will quickly realise that trying to compare the two and labell one console the overall 'more powerful' is an impossibility, it's a bit like asking 'what's better, a gigabyte or a megahertz?'

At any rate, the spreading of misinformation bothers me and I can't help but correct it when people make baseless claims.

OT, meh. By release the game will no doubt be running stabily, and it's not new news that the ps3 is less than accomodating for the devs.

 

[Ushario]

*snip*

John Carmack and many others have stated repeteadly that the PS3 is more difficult, time consuming and expensive to develop for. Whinge all you like its true.

How exactly do you know what consoles I do and do not own?
When did I become an 'expert'? I don't think that I am by any stretch. I have however been pursuing a career in games programming for three years now. When did you become an expert?

*snip*

John Carmack isn't id. id is a company that consists of hundreds of people.
It costs more due to increased development time to create a game on the PS3.
You sort of plucked a few things out of thin air from my post there. I won't bother addressing them as they are not relevant.

I will help you out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

Look at a few of the other vids from top members of the industry including Gabe Newell's videos.

Why do I hope that developers stop wasting their time on the PS3? Increased development costs in a recession are not a good thing. The XBox is offering easily accesible performance and is performing far better than the PS3 in terms of sales. It offers a larger target audience, cheaper development and has better support for online play. The PS3 is a black hole as far as I am concerned as the XBox360 does everything the PS3 does, only easier.

 

[73loup]

I apologize if anyone has brought this up, but after reading the first page of comments I didn't expect what was said to really change. I would like to preface this with the fact that I am a programmer and a highly educated programmer at that, but that's completely irrelevant beyond letting you know I have some reasoning behind my statements.

The PS3 is NOT harder to develop for than the 360/PC, the problem is that it's different than what anyone is used to. We've all seen over the past few years that multicore processors have become the standard not because we can't make a 6 GHz but because it's not at all useful because the cost to run that 6 GHz processor is astronomical, so the next way to get things to run "faster" was to actually split up the job onto multiple processors. Now we're seeing multiple graphics cards becoming more popular. The problem is that these extra CPUs and GPUs are completely useless unless you design your code to use them.

The problem now, is that everyone that has been taught or learned to code, learned to do it sequentially. It is quite ingrained that you have a set procedural way of developing software. However, with this new multi-core way of thinking we need to begin thinking about how to develop code in parallel as opposed to develop code and then make it parallel. So yes until people are able to learn how to do this, the PS3 will be "harder" to work with. Though, and this was previously said, it's quite simple to make something that's distributed and make it sequential.

And before, someone goes off, yes parallel computing has existed for quite a long time now, however very little of this parallel computing is truly done with code that was developed with a parallel way of thinking. Most of it is done by spawning, utilizing that fact that many sequential codes uses many computations on the same data or using the same equations (loops are a prime example of this) and we "parallelize" this by simply splitting up those loops to utilize the parallel hardware. This is called EMBARRASSINGLY PARALLEL CODE. That's not to say it's not smart or that it doesn't work, but it's a quick and dirty PORT of sequential code. And that's what most code that exists today that is parallel/distributed: it's a port of sequential code. In most instances even that code that is developed with the sole intention of using distributed architecture is a port because we first think of how to do it, within a sequential mindset, and then how to get it to work in the distributed world.

Sorry for the long rant, but hopefully this will provide some insight to someone out there. It basically comes down to the fact that the PS3, and future/modern architectures in general, require a completely different way of thinking to get the full potential out of it. So while the PS3 "harder" it's only because it truly forces you to have parallel code as opposed to copping out by doing a port of sequential code.

 

[xLANKYx]

Spec wise the PS3 is absolutely more powerful than a 360

It really isn't. That's among the most baseless claims people on the internet ever make. This generation has different hardware (as oppose to ps2 and xbox having identical GPUs, ram and very similar processers).

This, of course, is different "absolutely more powerful", an example of a minor hardware victory for the xbox 360 (over the ps3) is the (overheating prone) GPUs, which are modelled off radeon 2900 architecture where the (relatively stable) ps3 GPU is modelled off the older, less powerful Nvidia 7800 chipset. The ps3 has a more powerful CPU than the xbox 360, and anyone with half a clue will quickly realise that trying to compare the two and labell one console the overall 'more powerful' is an impossibility, it's a bit like asking 'what's better, a gigabyte or a megahertz?'

At any rate, the spreading of misinformation bothers me and I can't help but correct it when people make baseless claims.

OT, meh. By release the game will no doubt be running stabily, and it's not new news that the ps3 is less than accomodating for the devs.

i remember reading an artical in EDGE before PS3 came out where IBM (i think it was IBM) said that the cell asfar as pure computing power was concerned was a monster but when it came game code its power was restricted since its architecture is not well designed for game code, i think it was allso in that artical where they said they wont be bringing the cell tech to the PC market, which allthough understandble going by what IBM said about the CELL tech, i was surprised by IBM comments about the tech & how they wont be bringing it to the PC market becose at the time SONY was bragging big style about the power of the CELL.

before anyone brands me a fanboy i have a PS3 (it cost me £415, i even got off work early to get it)

with regards to RAGE, it will be upto 60 frames per second by its release so its not realy worth complaining about (unless it isnt 60fps when its released ofcourse, but we wont know that for awhile)

 

[Jumplion]

John Carmack isn't id. id is a company that consists of hundreds of people.
It costs more due to increased development time to create a game on the PS3.
You sort of plucked a few things out of thin air from my post there. I won't bother addressing them as they are not relevant.

I will help you out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

Look at a few of the other vids from top members of the industry including Gabe Newell's videos.

Why do I hope that developers stop wasting their time on the PS3? Increased development costs in a recession are not a good thing. The XBox is offering easily accesible performance and is performing far better than the PS3 in terms of sales. It offers a larger target audience, cheaper development and has better support for online play. The PS3 is a black hole as far as I am concerned as the XBox360 does everything the PS3 does, only easier.

1. The 360 has been out a year longer than the Ps3, of course it's going to have better sales.
2. Regardless of that, the PS3's sales are at a higher rate than the 360. Look at the 360's sales in 2007 (2 years after launch) then look at the PS3's sales in 2008 (or 2009, it was released late 2006), you will find that the PS3 has sold more than the 360 in two years in both their system's lives.

My points are quite relevant, id has never worked on a single project for the PS3, how the hell can you expect them to know exactly what to do with it? The 360 is easier to work with because it's more similar to PC, while the PS3 is it's own thing. Similarly with VALVe, VALVe has only had 1 game on PS3, and they weren't even the one who ported it, EA ported The Orange Box to PS3 and then they turn around and say "We don't want to give you the shortend of the stick!" while they still leave 360 owners in the dust. But that's more of a personal gripe.

But that's not mentioning that many other developers, Insomniac, Konami, Naughty Dog, Squeenix, Guerrilla Games, Capcom, Sucker Punch, ect... have said that the PS3's "POWAH!" gives them much more freedom to do what they please and focus on different aspects. So, who do we believe, VALVe who has worked on one game for the PS3 that was ported by EA and them saying "It's hard!"? Or the dozens of other developers that say that it gives them unprecedented amount of freedom and flexibility? Honestly, I don't know nor do I really care that much.

And I'm sorry, but your third paragraph just reeked with bias. Taking out 25 million potential customers just because the other has 30 million is not a good idea, restricting your userbase usually isn't. The online play for the PS3 for me has been great, while ironically the LIVE services has always been terrible for me, at least whenever I go to a friends house. Both online services are great when optimized and there's not much difference to say "PSN/LIVE is better!" unless you personally haven't had a good experience with it, and if that's the case I'm sorry for that.

Really, is the PS3 "harder" to develop for or is it just "different"? People said near the exact same thing with the PS2, how that was "difficult" to program for and how it costs the time and resources. Just because something is new and different for you to work at, doesn't mean you should quit because "it's hard!" Guess what, new things tend to be hard to accomplish.

As for that video, what were you trying to accomplish? Carmack pretty much said everything right, Sony is trying to make developers push more to get "better" games, however you define "better" or whatever. I think they've accomplished that with MGS4, InFamous, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet and most likely with up coming games like Heavy Rain and God of War 3 (the last two less so as they are not out yet, I don't want to assume anything from it). I don't know what you were trying to say out of that, he even said that none of them sucked, just that the PS3 is a little harder to develop for that's all.

BOTTOM LINE: Big whop, id is trying to make the PS3 go up to 60fps like the Pc/360 versions, OMG THAT MEANS THAT THE PS3 IS TEH HARDZ TO WORKZ FOH, THYZ HAVN'Z TRUBLZ!@!#!4 CPUS, GPUS, RASTERIZORZ, CELL PROCEZZORZ!!#$! THIS TEH MEANS THAT PS3 IS WASTE OF TEIM!@#

...even though Rage is far from finished, it's far away from release, id has time to polish up every nook and cranny of the game, they've never worked on a PS3 system before, and Carmack himselfs just says "The rasterizers a little slow".

Overreacting everyone?

 

[Jumplion]

If that is so, why is the PS3 version of Rage running at One Third (33%) the speed of the Xbox 360 and PC version? In fact even PS3 exclusives, that are actually produced by Sony suffer from the same low and inconsistent frame-rate and screen tearing like the most recent Infamous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XI3EjBlyYA&eurl

Even dipping as low as 15fps, for a 1st party game developed 3 years into the console cycle... we have a problem. It is just John Carmack is one of the developers with the cojones to say what the problem is. I think we can expect Sony to give him a lot of shit in the future for "bad mouthing" their console.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying that because this one game has some frame drop, which is common for any game on any platform, that proves whatever it is you're trying to prove? News flash, those frame drops tended to happen when there was a shit load of explosions going around everyone, something that happens with every game. I never noticed a single frame drop with all the time I've played InFamous, and even then, the frame rate went up to 48 once in that video, or does that not matter because it went to 15 once towards the end when it was purposefully slowing down for the "Mission Acomplished" screen?

Carmack has hardly said anything on what the "problem" is, all he's said is that the "Rasterizers are slower", that's it. Why is it so hard to fathom that a company that's never worked on a PS3, with an architecture vastly different then a PC, would have a little bit of a hard time getting used to it? They'll get used to it, they'll fix up whatever it is that needs fixing, and it'll all be fine when Rage releases on the 3 platforms. How is him saying "Rasterizers are slower" any indication of the Ps3 being worse to develop for? So they're slower, big whop, if Carmack is as godly as people say then he and his team should get over this quickly and move on.

 

[Monshroud]

Spec wise the PS3 is absolutely more powerful than a 360

It really isn't. That's among the most baseless claims people on the internet ever make. This generation has different hardware (as oppose to ps2 and xbox having identical GPUs, ram and very similar processers).

This, of course, is different "absolutely more powerful", an example of a minor hardware victory for the xbox 360 (over the ps3) is the (overheating prone) GPUs, which are modelled off radeon 2900 architecture where the (relatively stable) ps3 GPU is modelled off the older, less powerful Nvidia 7800 chipset. The ps3 has a more powerful CPU than the xbox 360, and anyone with half a clue will quickly realise that trying to compare the two and labell one console the overall 'more powerful' is an impossibility, it's a bit like asking 'what's better, a gigabyte or a megahertz?'

At any rate, the spreading of misinformation bothers me and I can't help but correct it when people make baseless claims.

OT, meh. By release the game will no doubt be running stabily, and it's not new news that the ps3 is less than accomodating for the devs.

(Please note before reading this: I am a 360 fan, and don't own a PS3)
I was speaking from a pure computational power standpoint. I don't think your comparison of gigabyte to megahertz is valid. They are game systems of the same generation. Based on your example I couldn't compare a Ford Focus to a Acura RSX based on overall HP, because they completely different cars. Doesn't change the fact that the Acura has better overall HP, even if the Focus has nicer cup holders.

From a purely theoretical standpoint of pure processing power, the PS3 is the more powerful system. If you have additional spec and comparison data that proves that otherwise I would like to see it, because I do my best not to talk out of my ass and don't mind being corrected.

 

[Treblaine]

1. The 360 has been out a year longer than the Ps3, of course it's going to have better sales.

Right, so explain why PS2 was able to beat Dreamcast to spite the PS2 coming out over 1 year later in North America and TWO YEARS later for Japan? Oh yeah, because PS2 was better! But that makes... oh no, that means XBOX 360 is Better than PS3! Noooo!

Conclusion: head start don't count for shit.

I could detail how wrong you are about your conclusions on PS3 sales being better than 360's, but I'll simply say you are clearly just cherry picking dates and comparing times when PS3 sold best and when 360 sold worst rather than compare sales of the same time period. If you did you'd see the 360 has pretty consistently sold 31% faster than PS3.

Also, Infamous is hardly and example of the PS3's "POWAH" as you put it, the frame-rate for Infamous is as bad as RAGE on PS3 is a the moment: 20-30 frames per second, often dipping as low as 15 frames per second and terrible screen tearing. There is also atrocious texture pop-in on already low res-textures that the screen blur does a terrible job of trying to hide. For a first party title it is disgraceful how mediocre it looks.

 

[Keldon888]

This isn't saying anything big at all, I hate the PS3 for loads of reasons, but all this does is confirm what all the other developers have been saying, its much more of a pain to code for.

Which we already knew, and Sony said was intentional.

It will be up to par on time, it's still in development, Sony isn't shooting themselves in the foot again, they made this mistake long ago, and we already knew about it.

This is just another opportunity to shake your head at them and say "what were they thinking."