Sony claims PS3 was made deliberately difficult to program for.

[bad rider]

Another point all together, is this why Final fantasy is being ported to the 360 instead of developed. So they can just downgrade quickly instead of tweaking it up from the 360? (which is respectively more difficult in my opininon)

 

[McClaud]

Point taken. I admit, I don't know much about the PS3 or its exclusives, so I think I'm just going to back quietly out of this thread.

I'm not actually mad at you or anything. A bit confused at times, because you seem to be a really intelligent person.

Having to design the credit card charge system for the PSN to work on the PS3 made me froth at the mouth. There's "complex but brilliant" systems, and there's "complex because we didn't care to do it efficiently" systems. The PS3 falls in the latter, and it frustrates me.

The PS3 has the potential to be the biggest platform ever if more producers could actually figure out how to use it without needing a roadmap and two pints of goat's blood to exploit it. Right now, my company butts heads with them on a constant basis because when we show them a flaw, they just smile and say, "The PS3 and PSN have a superior peer-to-peer system." That isn't even what we were talking about! Grrrrr.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Okay, so you make guns harder to produce and maintain so they're higher quality, right? RIGHT?

I mean, look at the complicated AK-47... wait, no. The fanciful M4... no. The ultra-high maintenance Barret 50.cal sniper rifle... Damn it.
The harder something is to use, the less you want to use it. The weapons industry understands this, why can't a mega company get it?

Ease of use and elegance are the ultimate combo and they can co-exist. You just have to try.

But from the way Sony is putting it, they're trying to weed out low-grade developers by making things hard... so only the big boys (and girls) stay.

 

[Zer_]

You're once again missing the context. The difference is between making something thats easy to develop for, is already known inside and out, and hits a low brick wall within 3 years, or having something that can be pushed to actually exceed the boundaries and make continual advancements.

No... That's not the point at all. In the typical 2 year development time frame a developer has to get a functional game out to the public. The more time spend trying to get all the issues that the PS3 brings to the table, the less time spent on the user's experience.

Does Sony honestly think their console will last 10 years? They are delusional if they believe that. The console already struggles to run current gen games. Every time I've tested cross-platform games on the PS3 it always had more bugs, it always ran worse, and it sometimes looked worse too. Come 5 years from now there will already be a significant advancement in hardware and it will leave the PS3 in the dust. So much for a 10 year life span.

In today's world of huge development costs the priority needs to be making games easier to make. Developers won't spend more time and more money developing on a platform that is more difficult to develop on.

There's a difference between challenging a programmer with new hardware, and annoying a developer with finicky hardware. A multi-threaded application compiled to run on a unix platform for example would simply not run when recompiled for the PS3. The application has no real bugs, but problems will almost always crop up and it's somewhat harder to track down issues on a Cell processor then it is using let's say a Quad Core 64 bit processor.

 

[Booze Zombie]

And it's working.

Does this not resulting in no innovation? I mean, with the same "big boys" making all of the game, the scene shall surely stagnate, correct?

 

[BLOONINJA 503]

Sony needs to price cut...

And God of War III needs to come sooner.

until then I dont see the PS3 making much of a mark right now.

Killzone looks wonderful but its basically the same FPS we have all played before.

"KILLZONE 2
WAR. PERFECTED"

I smirk at this. more like "WAR. WIT A FACE LIFT"

(Not fanboy I own all systems, and ps3 isnt my favorite right now.)

 

[Chickenlittle]

Kaz Hirai, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, defended the difficulty of programming for the Playstation 3 console.

According to Mr. Hirai, Sony chose not to "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?".

"So it's a kind of--I wouldn't say a double-edged sword--but it's hard to program for," Hirai continued, "and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."

What? It's not April 1st yet. Is Sony seriously saying this??? How does being hard to program for mean the hardware has more to offer? Sony took a dump on the development community with the PS3 and now they take an X-Lax fueled dump with this ridiculous statement.

You can read the full article here [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10173656-17.htm]

Personally I'm actually disgusted at this. This is why I generally don't support Sony at all anymore. I just don't know what else to say about this, I mean holy crap.

Can you say "arrogance"?

 

[Jumplion]

You're once again missing the context. The difference is between making something thats easy to develop for, is already known inside and out, and hits a low brick wall within 3 years, or having something that can be pushed to actually exceed the boundaries and make continual advancements.

No... That's not the point at all. In the typical 2 year development time frame a developer has to get a functional game out to the public. The more time spend trying to get all the issues that the PS3 brings to the table, the less time spent on the user's experience.

Does Sony honestly think their console will last 10 years? They are delusional if they believe that. The console already struggles to run current gen games. Every time I've tested cross-platform games on the PS3 it always had more bugs, it always ran worse, and it sometimes looked worse too. Come 5 years from now there will already be a significant advancement in hardware and it will leave the PS3 in the dust. So much for a 10 year life span.

One word and a number. Actually 2 words and 1 numbers;

Playstation
Playstation 2

 

[Grumman]

Except they can't - they already unlocked the full potential of the system in half a year, so all their games will look the same and there will be no discernable advancements.

First, by "look the same", you mean achieving a mastery of the system in 2009 that Hirai wants to delay until 2018. How is that not a good thing?

Second, not all aspects of a good game are solely derived from the system it's made to run on. Even if the physical limitations are absolute, you can still decide how you are going to use that capacity.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

It's Kaz Hirai.

Can you REALLY be surprised by what he says anymore?

"It's Ridge Racer!"

*crickets*


"RIIIIIIIIIIIDGE RACERRRRRRRRR!"


*crickets*

 

[Zer_]

Gee, I wonder what a game company, in the business of making games, could do with their time if they don't need to waste nine-and-a-half years learning to use the new hardware to its full potential?

I know! They could use their time to learn to make better games!

Except they can't - they already unlocked the full potential of the system in half a year, so all their games will look the same and there will be no discernable advancements.

Okay, so you make guns harder to produce and maintain so they're higher quality, right? RIGHT?

I mean, look at the complicated AK-47... wait, no. The fanciful M4... no. The ultra-high maintenance Barret 50.cal sniper rifle... Damn it.
The harder something is to use, the less you want to use it. The weapons industry understands this, why can't a mega company get it?

The A-Bomb was really simple, wasn't it?

With a platform that is more difficult to develop on you spend more time actually getting your engine to work, and less time making a good engine.

With a platform that is easier to develop on you spend less time getting it to simply function and you spend more time making the engine more efficient and squeezing out as much as you can from the hardware.

Your argument that making hardware more difficult to develop for will result in better overall use of the hardware is completely false.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

You're once again missing the context. The difference is between making something thats easy to develop for, is already known inside and out, and hits a low brick wall within 3 years, or having something that can be pushed to actually exceed the boundaries and make continual addvancements.

Ah, I was wondering when you would show up to inevitably defend Sony. Alright, I can sort of see where you're coming from. But you can see why many developers would turn away from the console that is being made deliberately difficult to make games for.

I won't deny that. However, lets look at this from a third perspective - we've just seen the latest in those holy-shit-the-ps3s-power-is-off-the-charts games with Killzone 2. Developers feel that just because something is different means its not a valid ideal, but then this game proves that the application of effort does yield incredible results.

i Agree with Dingo here, when You make games Designed for a System, you can achieve grand Results. i personally, wanting a Game or not felt that if they put to use all the power that Machine can muster, it will allways be better then something that is designed to run on everything

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Okay, so you make guns harder to produce and maintain so they're higher quality, right? RIGHT?

I mean, look at the complicated AK-47... wait, no. The fanciful M4... no. The ultra-high maintenance Barret 50.cal sniper rifle... Damn it.
The harder something is to use, the less you want to use it. The weapons industry understands this, why can't a mega company get it?

The A-Bomb was really simple, wasn't it?

Yeah, and look how often A-bombs are used.

Power does not equal usability or popularity.

I admire your passion and even agree with you on certain points, but bad metaphors need to be torpedoed. Sorry.

 

[Zer_]

All the people complaining about Sony being arrogant for making a system that is technologically forward and requires more effort be put into game design should really re-think that point of view. Do we honestly want every system to be peddling crap like Carnival Games? It simply blows my mind how people constantly give Nintendo a pat on the back for using something that's been around for quite sometime to make a barely functional controller. Meanwhile, Sony actually puts some time, effort and money into truly making a powerful system and people rip on it for being too powerful.

I'm going to slam my head into the keyboard now, I'm not sure when I'll stop.

But it isn't that powerful. The Cell processor was generally turned down by most hardware manufacturers because superior alternatives were already being made. And I actually consider the Cell processor to be the only thing the PS3 has over the 360. The GPU in the PS3 is mediocre at best.