Sony claims PS3 was made deliberately difficult to program for.

Ajar

New member
Aug 21, 2006
300
0
0
bad rider said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
bad rider said:
Credit where credit is due, he has a point. If you make things difficult to program for your options get larger and more varied, whereas simple programming = simple options. That said I think Sony tends toward the extreme instead of going for the middle ground. But hey, they wanted to build a big powerful behemoth and thats what they are built.

*snipped the graph*
Pretty much sums it up.
Making something more difficult to do doesn't mean the result is any better, and I don't actually follow how logic can tell you otherwise. Difficulty with the development tools isn't going to do anything more than frustrate teams, slow them down and cause them to cut features in the end. The only benefit is many of the features will remain untapped for a certain portion of the product's life cycle, meaning there is always "just a little more power" to harness. The downside is many users simply do not see any evidence of the PS3's supposed hardware superority.

And the metacritic score by platform doesn't tell me anything other than you get more garbage games on some platforms than others, and even that conculsion is sketchy.
Well I am using this the graph to portray it, although I can't say it's evidence as a correlation can be due to other factors, but what I'm saying is your options are greater allowing for more to be done, while it may frustrate teams it's a case of you can get far better quality which this correlation may suggest. But you are right in saying that and maybe only developers who want to make killer apps or have experience with the PS3 will make games with it stoping the flow of bad games (look at the wii)so I don't know maybe, but the correlation shows it and maybe it's also a case of developers get frustrated, but can still make higher quality games for it.
A much more obviously visible correlation on that graph is the inverse correlation between installed base and average Metacritic score. Platforms with huge installed bases like the PS2 and DS have lower average Metacritic scores than platforms with smaller installed bases like the PS3.

Added: What I mean to say is that big installed bases attract more developers, which means a wider spread of titles since the overwhelming majority of games aren't first- or second-party. I think you could support this hypothesis by comparing average Metacritic scores between the GameCube and the Wii.
 

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
Ajar said:
bad rider said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
bad rider said:
Credit where credit is due, he has a point. If you make things difficult to program for your options get larger and more varied, whereas simple programming = simple options. That said I think Sony tends toward the extreme instead of going for the middle ground. But hey, they wanted to build a big powerful behemoth and thats what they are built.

*snipped the graph*
Pretty much sums it up.
Making something more difficult to do doesn't mean the result is any better, and I don't actually follow how logic can tell you otherwise. Difficulty with the development tools isn't going to do anything more than frustrate teams, slow them down and cause them to cut features in the end. The only benefit is many of the features will remain untapped for a certain portion of the product's life cycle, meaning there is always "just a little more power" to harness. The downside is many users simply do not see any evidence of the PS3's supposed hardware superority.

And the metacritic score by platform doesn't tell me anything other than you get more garbage games on some platforms than others, and even that conculsion is sketchy.
Well I am using this the graph to portray it, although I can't say it's evidence as a correlation can be due to other factors, but what I'm saying is your options are greater allowing for more to be done, while it may frustrate teams it's a case of you can get far better quality which this correlation may suggest. But you are right in saying that and maybe only developers who want to make killer apps or have experience with the PS3 will make games with it stoping the flow of bad games (look at the wii)so I don't know maybe, but the correlation shows it and maybe it's also a case of developers get frustrated, but can still make higher quality games for it.
A much more obviously visible correlation on that graph is the inverse correlation between installed base and average Metacritic score. Platforms with huge installed bases like the PS2 and DS have lower average Metacritic scores than platforms with smaller installed bases like the PS3.
Again thats the thing external factors, this graph I only use as a source to back this up, however I am being really reductionist as I could write an essay a few pages long on this subject.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Mazty said:
Woe Is You said:
Mazty said:
If a buy a console, I want the games to carry on improving in all aspects for more than 3 years, hence why I bought a PS3.
Like I said, it's silly to assume this doesn't apply to every console since history has shown us that the games with the best tech have been released around the end of a console's lifespan since the NES. Earlier, even. It's natural progression.

I can understand buying a console for its current library but the whole "I'm buying a console for its future potential" thing is to put it sheer stupidity to put it bluntly. That potential might never be realized and in that case, all you have to show for that is an expensive doorstop like the 3DO (I'm not saying the PS3 is this, but at one point it was possible for it to end up like it).
To say that potential for the current generations consoles is the same is simply wrong, just look at the tech specs. The PS3 has bluray, a permanent HDD, better CPU & better GFX capabilities. The 360 tech is very dated & as I said, the Halo 3 devs claimed Halo 3 was pushing the 360 to it's limits, which isn't surprising considering the lack of ram and the tricore processor it uses. And graphically the 360 hasn't wowed any audience for quite a while, yet K2 got universal praise for its graphics, and with the screenshots of God of War being apparently only beta shots, then that will probably do the same.
You have no idea what you are talking about, sir. 360 tech isn't as dated as you think. The technology implemented in the 360's GPU are still in use on modern GPUs for PC, not only that but the PS3 doesn't have a unified pipeline architecture.

While the Cell has more horsepower it not only has bottlenecks internally, but other parts such as the GPU and Memory further bottleneck the Cell's capabilities.

The 360 on the other hand has parts that work very well with each other. There is very little bottlenecking, and a great deal more flexibility.
 

Sparrowsabre7

New member
Mar 12, 2008
219
0
0
reminds me of this article about the PSP: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/24/news_6116985.html
I like how they design things to be deliberately bad, and are then modest about it after "We believe we've created the most beautiful thing in the world" ...
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Mazty said:
To say that potential for the current generations consoles is the same is simply wrong, just look at the tech specs.
Instead of moving goal posts, see the crux of my argument: it doesn't matter what the specs of the hardware are, since the developers will do better looking and playing games by default on a platform that they know all the tricks on. None of the systems have been out long enough for all the tricks to be known yet. You only really need to look at the previous generations to see this.

But alright, let's play this game your way.

There's an analysis of the hardware right above your post. Really, the 360 has the exact same amount of RAM (which can be freely distributed between tasks as needed unlike on the PS3, where half of the RAM is only for the GPU to use), its GPU is clocked lower but is more efficient at doing tasks (thanks to the unified shading architecture) and while the Cell is without a doubt more powerful than the Xenon, by how much is still up in the air. If the 360 is very dated, the same really goes for the PS3 too.
 

DrHoboPHD

New member
Feb 9, 2009
101
0
0
Guys you clearly don't get it.

Sony is performing an experiment at the expense of their fanboys. They are trying to see how blatantly absurd and irrational they can be and still have their fanboys defend them.

This is just the result of them trying an extreme, saying they purposefully made their console flawed in a way that makes developers hate it, because that somehow means they will do better on it.

As you can see in this topic, it hasn't worked. Their fanboys are still ardently defending their absurd and in some cases harmful business practices.

Next article they release will most likely have them saying that dried out human flesh is used to make the boxes that PS3s come in, in order to make them more environmentally friendly.

Though from what I've heard, by their estimates even that won't stop their fanboys.
 

Sewblon

New member
Nov 5, 2008
3,107
0
0
Mr.Switchblade said:
Impressive, once again the Japanese continue to prove that they just don't get the rest of the world
Except for that other Japanese console maker that we don't like. The one that made money selling machines that call people fat.
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
I'd actually be willing to put this under the "CEOs are idiots and any success their companies have had has been in spite of the things they've said and done" folder. I doubt making their tools hard to use was really intentional, more like a side-effect of wanting to use tech that wasn't really mature yet. If it were an intentional result, then that's stupidity of the tallest order.
 

Sewblon

New member
Nov 5, 2008
3,107
0
0
The console having more potential makes no difference if software developers have no reason to exploit it. Sony is committing suicide slowly.
 

roblikestoskate

New member
Oct 16, 2008
262
0
0
Geez. Hirai is just posturing for shareholders. The fate of the PS3 has already been sealed and all Kaz can do now is use strong talk to sway public perception. Sony doesn't even understand what made their previous consoles great: the sheer number of games available on those platforms. Here's a snippet from the original article:

I won't debate that the PS3 may have "a lot more to offer," but I do take issue with Sony's justification for it. What good is a powerful console, if developers don't know how to get the most out of it? I simply don't see anything positive about making things too difficult on developers.

The video game industry is unique because hardware makers rely on third parties to be successful. The more games a console has, the more likely people will want it. But if development is too challenging for third parties, I'm hard-pressed to see how that will benefit Sony at all, even though developers can do more with the console.


Granted, an increase in developer support is bound to attract shovelware, but that shouldn't scare the talented developers away. Any time the consumer has more options, the consumer is empowered.

Admittedly, one of my favorite consoles of recent memory (besides the PS2) was the GameCube. It didn't have a ton of games, but the games that were available were very fun.
 

_daxter_

New member
Jan 12, 2008
48
0
0
guys, i think the actual problem is sony not supporting the developers. if guys like insomniac already share their technology on the internet it must mean that developers seriously need a community...
 

Rezfon

New member
Feb 25, 2008
338
0
0
how many people who defend his comment on being difficult to program are actually programmers here? I am and I think what he is saying is stupid.
 

IsoNeko

New member
Oct 6, 2008
457
0
0
Is nobody seeing the point here?

Graphics =/= Gameplay.

Sure, Game X The Sequel, might look as pretty as the Prom Queen during her orgasm, but that doesn't mean the games going to be great. For all we know, the game itself could be about as sexually appealing as Columbo in Borats famous Mankini.
 

IsoNeko

New member
Oct 6, 2008
457
0
0


=/=



Mazty said:
The 360 wasn't technically advanced when it came out, meaning that developers won't find it problematic to maximise it's full capabilities e.g. Halo 3.
 

Rodger

New member
Jan 27, 2009
161
0
0
Mazty said:
SuperFriendBFG said:
Plus how does the bottlenecking occur when the PS3 has 256mb [email protected] and [email protected]hz, and a considerably faster processor.
Bottlenecking has nothing to do with the specs. Think of it this way, the XBox 360 and PS3 both have pipes roughly the same size. However, the PS3's pipes have narrow ends. So while water flows equally throughout all sections of the 360's pipes, it has to go through a narrow entrance first on the PS3's pipes.

I'm sure someone else could explain it better than that but you get the general idea. Big pipe, small entrance.

The specs for the PS3 and XBox 360 are actually closely matched. The difference, however, is the PS3 makes its developers run through an obstacle course in order to actually USE said specs. Also, the processing method used by the PS3 actually limits AI capabilities. So AI for PS3 games probably won't get much better than whatever Killzone 2 has. In other words, the 360 has potential to surpass PS3 as far as actual gameplay goes.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Rodger said:
Mazty said:
SuperFriendBFG said:
Plus how does the bottlenecking occur when the PS3 has 256mb [email protected] and [email protected], and a considerably faster processor.
Bottlenecking has nothing to do with the specs. Think of it this way, the XBox 360 and PS3 both have pipes roughly the same size. However, the PS3's pipes have narrow ends. So while water flows equally throughout all sections of the 360's pipes, it has to go through a narrow entrance first on the PS3's pipes.

I'm sure someone else could explain it better than that but you get the general idea. Big pipe, small entrance.

The specs for the PS3 and XBox 360 are actually closely matched. The difference, however, is the PS3 makes its developers run through an obstacle course in order to actually USE said specs. Also, the processing method used by the PS3 actually limits AI capabilities. So AI for PS3 games probably won't get much better than whatever Killzone 2 has. In other words, the 360 has potential to surpass PS3 as far as actual gameplay goes.
Meh you can't simplify bottlenecking that much. The reality is that the RAM is not only slower on the PS3 but you only have 256 available for the GPU (Textures and whatnot) and 256 available for everything else (sound for example). Problem is that due to this lack of flexibility you are essentially stuck with 256MB of ram for textures. If I wanted to develop a game on the 360 I'd have more memory available for texture data.

Also the links between the cores on the Cell processor are slower then the 360's Processor which further bottlenecks the console. The lack of unified pipelines on the PS3's GPU can also bottleneck the console.

On the 360 if we took a game that was very polygon heavy it wouldn't run too well on the PS3 because the PS3's GPU has a fixed number of vertex pipelines. Let's take a large scale RPG styled game as an example on the 360 (think Fallout 3). The exteriors are vast and have a large number of verticies. Having a unified architecture allows you to allocate more of the pipelines to render verticies so the hardware can run vast exterior spaces smoothly. Within the same game you may enter an interior space where there aren't so many polygons to render. What the developers can do is then use more pipelines to render shaders and texture data. This means that your interiors can be vastly detailed, while still being able to push out some large open spaces.
 

Rezfon

New member
Feb 25, 2008
338
0
0
Rodger said:
Mazty said:
SuperFriendBFG said:
Plus how does the bottlenecking occur when the PS3 has 256mb [email protected] and [email protected], and a considerably faster processor.
Bottlenecking has nothing to do with the specs. Think of it this way, the XBox 360 and PS3 both have pipes roughly the same size. However, the PS3's pipes have narrow ends. So while water flows equally throughout all sections of the 360's pipes, it has to go through a narrow entrance first on the PS3's pipes.

I'm sure someone else could explain it better than that but you get the general idea. Big pipe, small entrance.

The specs for the PS3 and XBox 360 are actually closely matched. The difference, however, is the PS3 makes its developers run through an obstacle course in order to actually USE said specs. Also, the processing method used by the PS3 actually limits AI capabilities. So AI for PS3 games probably won't get much better than whatever Killzone 2 has. In other words, the 360 has potential to surpass PS3 as far as actual gameplay goes.
yeah that's a pretty good simple explanation of bottlenecking. You generally have several causes of bottlenecking. Bottlenecking can usually occur through some components not being good enough to work with other parts, but bottlenecking can also occur between 2 devices not being entirely compatible or through both parts being non-efficiently designed. Having little leeway for problems during operation can also bottleneck the system, especially on the PC. If you use a part at maximum performance, then when a problem occurs the whole system slows down dramatically. Capacitance problems also play a major role in electronics and can hinder the parts potential.

So simply put, despite the specifications shown, a slightly worse system with better compatibility and efficiency between parts can actually perform to the same standard or better than the higher specced one. When I say worse I don't mean dramatically worse (eg saying my old computer from 1995 will out-perform my 2007 one is just stupid to assume).
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Mazty said:
The 360 does have a better GPU, but not in everyway if you compare their speeds in processes such as texel fillrate. Plus how does the bottlenecking occur when the PS3 has 256mb [email protected] and [email protected], and a considerably faster processor. I'm not being retorical, just curious as it's hard to find clear cut information on the workings of either from an unbiased point.
Though I'd have thought with the 360 having less ram, a much slower media format and a non-permanent HDD, that the PS3 has much more potential, especially if games in the future get large enough to fill DVDs.
Hey, you asked whether I know about tech. Then you go about saying how the 360 has less RAM (the combined amount of RAM is the exact same), that the media format is much slower (it's not, the peak speed of the DVD drive on a 360 is higher than that of the Blu-ray drive on a PS3 and on average the speed is about the same). Then the bolded part. There's 2 outright lies and the bolded part, which basically is you admitting that you have no way to tell these things.

We're three years in. We have no way to tell whether the 360 has really peaked (we heard the exact same thing about the PS2 in the last generation around 2-3 years after release). Killzone 2 looks really pretty, sure, but I have no reason to believe that both consoles won't have better looking titles, say, three years from now. And really, we have no way to tell whether the Wii has really peaked. Checking the history of consoles, assuming any of the consoles has peaked at this point is just sheer brainlessness.

I really don't see why anyone would have a reason to defend Kaz's stupid remarks here.