Sony claims PS3 was made deliberately difficult to program for.

[McClaud]

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.

Exactly.

Look, exploiting the console's hardware for the maximum effect is the end-goal. Great games get made this way. The potential for great games is there, and it can easily out-run all the competition. Of course, the potential for horrible games is there, but they won't exploit the best the PS3 has to offer. The reason they'll be crappy games is because they won't take the time, effort or actual intelligence to design them correctly in the first place.

Now, Sony did not intentionally make it hard to develop games on the PS3. They actually went about carving out the architecture that runs all the hardware inefficiently. I suspect because they weren't exactly sure what was going to be in the PS3 until the last minute. How it resolves the TV's resolution, for example, is a mess. How it actually interfaces with the Internet and PSN is ass-backward.

All I had to do was make a sure-fire encryption method for using your credit card to buy stuff over the PS3. Even that simple task was made at least four times harder than it should have been. If that's for something easy, imagine it for something actually more complex and revolutionary. Level 5 - the guys that developed White Knight Chronicles - they said the PS3 is unnecessarily difficult to create a game on. John Carmack - who loves the blu-ray - said the PS3 is a nightmare to develop games for.

Again, it's Sony spinning something. They took a reason and warped it to excuse themselves from having to admit that they were lazy.

 

[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.

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

You saying the PS3 has limited uses? It's got more you can do with it than any other system.
(A-bombs aren't used because I believe it's against the Geneva convention.)

No, I'm saying PS3 does not equal A-bomb. Aside from that, A-bombs are practically worthless. You don't use A-bombs when a 2,000 pounder will work. Hell, even tactical nukes are practically worthless.

Haven't you heard the news about vacuum bombs?

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Kaz Hirai

Do NOT listen to him. He's an idiot. Period. He makes up stupid shit like this as a pathetic way to "defend" all criticism for the PS3.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

If I recall, the Cell processor was finicky as hell initially, and they were having severe stability issues in just getting it off the ground, and stay flying.

My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think it was originally meant for server machines, which can suit the purpose of running a gaming system adequately, but not as well as if it were specifically designed for that purpose.

While I applaud Sony for trying something exciting and new, I can recognize that it isn't (at the moment, at least) looking to be the best idea they ever had.

 

[Inverse Skies]

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

If your head starts to bleed then I would probably stop...

On topic: Hmmm... I guess it's sort of like mathematics. The hardest math are always the ones that you can do more with. You can do more with imaginary numbers than you can with real numbers and solve a lot more equations using them, but they're incredibly hard to take a grasp of. Same thing with vectors or matrices, you can do more with the harder versions of these mathematical tools than with the simpler versions.

If you apply the same theory here (and programming does involve some mathematics at some point) then I could see where they're coming from. Of course I don't study programming so I might be completely wrong. Please correct me if I am.

 

[McClaud]

If the PS3 is so awkward & difficult to develop for then why does its '09 exclusive lineup leave everyone else in the dust? Console wars are defined by a handful of key titles. They're not decided by the accessibility of the hardware.

Because, like me, we're told we have to make something on the PS3. Some of those titles you're talking about should have come out last year, but issues with development and the long-way-round method for the PS3 kept them from doing so. But if you make a commitment for something, you carry it out (and they were determined to make money).

Example:
I could have fixed the problem with people's debit cards being rejected for false reasons by PSN via the PS3 within days after the problem popped up, but instead, it took me four months. And in four months, there were people who quit supporting the PSN downloadble titles. I could have developed nine good transaction systems elsewhere in the time it took me to create and adapt one. It cost my company three months of profit.

That same reason is why Level 5 is reluctant to make another game for the PS3. They could have made two more good titles in the time it took them to make one, thus ensuring more income for their company faster. Which is what developers want. Otherwise, developers are going to start cutting corners all over the place to get a game out for the PS3 quicker.

And if developers want to make great games, they will. And as a gamer, I profit from them coming out, not from waiting six months to a year longer for them.

 

[jboking]

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.

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

You saying the PS3 has limited uses? It's got more you can do with it than any other system.
(A-bombs aren't used because I believe it's against the Geneva convention.)

No, I'm saying PS3 does not equal A-bomb. Aside from that, A-bombs are practically worthless. You don't use A-bombs when a 2,000 pounder will work. Hell, even tactical nukes are practically worthless.

Haven't you heard the news about vacuum bombs?

Nukes could actually be considered the most used weapon ever. They have simply switched from being an offensive weapon to a defensive one
see: nuclear deterrent

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Nukes could actually be considered the most used weapon ever. They have simply switched from being an offensive weapon to a defensive one
see: nuclear deterrent

Good point.

But one does not own a console as a deterrent to...

Aw fuck it. Yeah, this analogy is thoroughly broken.

 

[Ajar]

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."

Complexity doesn't imply power. If it did, the PS2 would have been more comparable to the original Xbox than it actually was.

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.

This assumes that hardware configuration is the only factor driving game performance, which isn't true. It also assumes an equivalence between game quality and game graphics.

I like the PS3 and am quite fond of mine, but we don't yet have any reason to think that its graphics ceiling in gaming is massively higher than that of the 360. The PS3 has a theoretical CPU advantage, but while that advantage is clear in Cell-suited applications like Folding@home, it isn't at all clear how much of that theoretical performance will turn into real-world gaming performance. This was the case last generation, where the PS2's Emotion Engine had a theoretical FLOPS advantage over the Xbox's processor and yet there was nothing on the PS2 that equalled the best of the Xbox graphically.

My personal opinion is that the PS3 will eventually surpass the 360's graphics ceiling, but not by a particularly wide margin, and that it won't be enough to get anywhere near closing the installed base gap in North America.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Greater complexity does not automatically equate to greater functionality. See also: Rube Goldberg

 

[Therumancer]

A Bombs aren't used because people are too stupid. They only work as a deterrant as long as people believe you will use them, and what's more they are a first strike weapon (ie you fire them before you do anything else, or you wind up decimating your own troops) as opposed to a "weapon of last resort". The penelty for not using them is of course that the rest of the world calls your bluff, and walks all over you. Especially when they realize that your afraid they will use nukes, while at the same time nobody fears you will, since your the only one taking the treaties seriously.

Of course this is a whole differant discussion (I'll be getting on with the subject) feel free to draw your own conclusions in connection with the current political state of the world and what I'm saying. >

-


When it comes to the Japanese I think part of the problem is not only the language barriers in some cases (they fail to get good translators), but also a staggering degree of racism (feeling they are superior to all others, and everyone else is stupid), coupled with arrogance.

*IF* the plan described above is accuratly translated, as opposed to comments here about how he probably meant "the difficulty is worth the long term performance of the system", then on a lot of levels it's very Japanese. They basically feel that people are so stupid that they can get away with, or say, just about anything. The idea of creating a program that is hard to design for as a sign of their superiority since so many people will want to design for it, being something that they would come up with.

I can't articulate the attitudes correctly (as clear as that might sound to some, it's not quite what I'm trying to say). Suffice it to say I'm fairly bitter having been on the receiving end of it when it comes to games/electronics.

I'd chalk this one up to the same thing as when asked how they expected people to be able to afford one of these uber-expensive game machines the official answer was "well we expect people to work more hours". One of those "huh" comments on so many levels that it approached disbelief, much like here. But it's very telling of the central attitude and how arrogant and disconnected it actually is.

I guess I can't be TOO nasty since Japan is changing, but every once in a while you can forget their progress when something truely staggering like this stuff smacks you in the head.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Correct. It's a bad solution. The PS3's marketing plan was idiotic and the hardware is idiotic as well. The Cell is MAYBE a tiny, tiny bit more powerful than the Xbox 360's processor when you get down to it. Gabe Newell wasn't lying when he said it wasn't worth it...

Sony's idea here is that if they made the hardware powerful--even MARGINALLY more powerful than the 360--but difficult to program for then it'd weed out the boys from the men, so to speak; insure that only the really strong developers who were REALLY dedicated to what they were doing and had the strongest pipelines would make games for the PS3. Those who were prepared--Konami, Capcom, Square, Insomniac, Naughty Dog--would be able to adapt and deliver. Those who weren't prepared--Factor 5, the makers of Lair, for instance--would wither and die on the PS3 or go to other consoles. Those who insisted on cross-platforming would face a big uphill climb--with a rock dragging behind them, as they'd have to make substantial modifications to make their stuff work. It'd drag back development substantially for developers to do it.

Sony wanted it to be exclusive or nothing. They wanted their library to stand out as much as possible, to insure that they offered something different from the competition, and to insure they only offered top-tier games. They cocked up their marketing badly, though, especially with quotes like these being leaked by the upper management. Then they delayed development of the PS3 and lost the exclusive contracts they were depending on because, well, game developers need to EAT and had been counting on its release sooner than Sony could deliver.

Unfortunately they didn't lose enough of their exclusives for their plan to fail COMPLETELY. Thanks to Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and the other companies that insist that the Cell is worth it and that the PS3 is the way, they were able to distinguish themselves from their competitors with Ratchet and Clank, Drake's Fortune, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Little Big Planet, which were frankly all that they needed for me to trade my red-ringed Xbox 360 Elite for a PS3 on Best Buy's extended warranty. The other games I care about are available on both consoles thanks to Sony's screw-up, and I just don't give enough of a crap about Gears of War and Halo for the 360 to have any real appeal to me.

So. Sony's plan worked.

Personally I wouldn't force anyone to develop for the PS3 when the 360 has equivalent capabilities, a better-designed controller, and much better development support. Microsoft also doesn't jack with their developers the way Sony jacked with Factor 5, pressuring them to make last-minute changes to games and the like. But the PS3 has the games I want on it. ALL the games I want on it. The Wii has NONE of the games I want on it other than Smash Bros. and the 360 has only SOME of the games I want. Sony can keep making all the politically incorrect quotes and stupid business decisions they want. Corporate idiocy on the part of one company isn't enough to make me stop supporting OTHER companies that I DO respect.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I fucking knew that Sony hated developers!!

But seriously, are they really going to claim that?

 

[ArchBlade]

Hm. Looks like Sony did something right in this case, for the most part. Fewer exclusives, but higher quality exclusives. Well played.

*Sigh* I really need to get more games for that big black monolith of a machine.

Then again, this all has the massive downside being that more exclusives would almost as a rule bring in more money. Gold star removed.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Greater complexity does not automatically equate to greater functionality. See also: Rube Goldberg

Fuck. I wish I had just said this. QFT, man.

 

[matrix3509]

This kind of thing doesn't come as a surprise to me anymore. I mean its not as if we don't have mountains of evidence of Sony's past customer relations "crimes" from the past. The thing that gets me everytime is that Sony makes it pretty clear that they can take a piss in their customer's mouths and they will keep coming back.

I mean really, if its obvious you can make a living treating people like shit, why would you do anything else?

No other company on the planet with the exception of maybe Microsoft, could get away with this. So why do we tolerate it?

And before anyone says, "Oh its because they are only one of 3 choices for videogames", let me remind you, when one company falls, there will be another rise to take its place, its the way of capitalism, just because one company goes out of business, that doesn't mean that there will never be another.

It is my opinion that Sony needs to burn in the fires of hell so that another company may rise up, preferably a company run by actual humans, and not anti-christs.