Developing on PS3 is Purposely Hard, Sony Says

[Dekoth]

That is because, *gasp*, the 360 is the more powerful gaming system. It has a better GPU, and as we all know, games love GPU power, not CPU power. Sony seems to think that the Cell is going to give it an edge somehow, but in reality it won't. Then again, Sony also claimed that the PS3 is capable of 2 TFLOPs when in reality it is closer to 400 GFLOPs (somehow the ~200 gflops 7900GT became a 1.8 tflop beast when sony's marketing team got a hold of it )

Sorry, not even close. The 360 has no where even close to the same power. Oh and btw they share the same core processor, sony just has more cores.

Killzone 2 and upcoming God of war 3 put that silly rumor out of it's misery. Don't get me wrong the 360 is nice, but it is hardly more powerful.

 

[phide]

Oh and btw they share the same core processor, sony just has more cores.

No part of this statement is true.

 

[htphm42]

Sorry, not even close. The 360 has no where even close to the same power. Oh and btw they share the same core processor, sony just has more cores.

Killzone 2 and upcoming God of war 3 put that silly rumor out of it's misery. Don't get me wrong the 360 is nice, but it is hardly more powerful.

Same core processor? You got be kidding me . Whatever happen to the cell hype?

That aside, the xbox's GPU is based ATi's HD2000 series, while the PS3 is on the 6800GT (or 7800GT, I can't remember). In terms of power, they're pretty damn close, although I think the xbox might have an edge. The only thing that sony has going for it is its cell processor, which isn't that advantageous in games. That, and blue ray, which it's trying to shove down our throat.

 

[InCogneato]

Same core processor? You got be kidding me . Whatever happen to the cell hype?

That aside, the xbox's GPU is based ATi's HD2000 series, while the PS3 is on the 6800GT (or 7800GT, I can't remember). In terms of power, they're pretty damn close, although I think the xbox might have an edge. The only thing that sony has going for it is its cell processor, which isn't that advantageous in games. That, and blue ray, which it's trying to shove down our throat.

360 isn't even close to being as powerful as PS3. PS3 has double the theoretical power as the 360 and depending on what devs do with the Cell, they will be able to tap that power. But who cares about numbers? The proof is in the games and right now the PS3 is blowing 360 graphics out of the water with about half it's resources, while the 360's best looking game (Gears 2) was said by the developers to be taking the 360 to it's max.

 

[htphm42]

The Cell is not going to improve graphic quality for the ps3 much. It'll be bottle necked by the GPU. Also, it is not design with game dev in mind, due to its floating point architecture and such. I'm pretty sure games like KZ2 and MGS4 have tapped most of the power the PS3 got. I mean, it's been three years since it launch, we're not going to see any surprises . This is just an excuse from Sony because they drop the balls on the PS3. They were more focus on making it a multipurpose media center than a true gaming platform.

 

[heero884]

360 isn't even close to being as powerful as PS3. PS3 has double the theoretical power as the 360 and depending on what devs do with the Cell, they will be able to tap that power. But who cares about numbers? The proof is in the games and right now the PS3 is blowing 360 graphics out of the water with about half it's resources, while the 360's best looking game (Gears 2) was said by the developers to be taking the 360 to it's max.

And that's why GTA4 runs at 640P on the PS3 and the 360 version runs at 720P. The 360 isn't even close to being as powerful as the PS3

 

[Zellio2009]

Isn;'t the 360 GPU comparable to a 7800gtx, and the sony gpu comparable to a x1800?

At the end of the day, 3d gaming comes down to the gpu. Multiple cores help with lots of things, but not really 3d processing itself.

Sony may one day have the most amazing physics ever, but that system won't be lasting 10 years.

 

[Manaknight]

On a side note: Wasn't the PS2 hard to code for as well, relatively speaking? (though probably not as much so)

not as much as the 360, someone can correct me on this though, the few ps2 games i've been involved with i was only doing modeling.

where i see this Sony "decision" as a failure is simple.

yes the cell is powerful, thats cool, and i have nothing against that. Games have budgets however, higher learning curve = more time to figure it out which means more money. It also means slower going.

xbox 360 is almost identical to programming for windows, which is more or less what you learn to do if you go to school for programming or even if you learn from a book. Ok well you learn for windows or linux/unix, so i don't get the penguin fans after me ;p

the bottom line is 360 games are basically created from existing knowledge and technology, not something proprietary, so a developer can fire up their 3d programs, and visual studio and more or less be ready to go, therefore development is faster and more efficient....and cheaper...hence a greater return on investments + extra time to be able to refine games.

Sony can view it however they want, but simply put, the time and attention will be paid to the system that creates a bigger return on investment. I get the whole quality vs quantity thing, but that unfortunately doesn't really cut it in this kind of market, its not an either or its a both....nintendo learned that with gamecube.

 

[Dreaz]

So PS3 is the smart kid that's lazy
and
the 360 is the average kid that works hard

 

[stop!theradio]

I think KZ2 has simpler environment and character designs, as to where GOW2 looks as though it has much more geometry involved per-object. Both games have great textures and effects, though.

I think they sort of even-out, graphics-wise after you look how each one differs due to the sacrifices made in different areas of the graphics specific to the game. I wouldn't say either game blows the other out of the water - not even close.

 

[Vorazan]

lol having a powerful CPU doesn't make your graphics better. I wish it did.

 

[Dekoth]

No part of this statement is true.

Same core processor? You got be kidding me . Whatever happen to the cell hype?

That aside, the xbox's GPU is based ATi's HD2000 series, while the PS3 is on the 6800GT (or 7800GT, I can't remember). In terms of power, they're pretty damn close, although I think the xbox might have an edge. The only thing that sony has going for it is its cell processor, which isn't that advantageous in games. That, and blue ray, which it's trying to shove down our throat.

That makes both of you wrong, perhaps you should do some reading on the Processor's powering the PS3 and 360. They both share the same core chip. You need to learn the difference between a core and a processor. The core is only the base chip, the processor is all of the features put on top of that core.

Either way, Go take a look at Killzone 2. The graphics on that game pretty much end the argument anyhow. There is nothing on my 360 that even comes close.

 

[Deleted member 89137]

From a quality standpoint, I guess this would push the envelop, BUT from a marketing standpoint, this is asinine.

Look at Nintendo then look at Sony. Which is easier to program for? Which is cheaper? Which is not cutting edge? Which is making more money?

Fun does not equate incredible looking graphics. You can have the best engine in the world that simulates real life, but to a gamer... is it fun?

I hate the nintendo Wii. I have one, I can't play it without getting overly frustrated at how innacurate the controls are.

 

[Grentz]

I think Sony's bigger problem is one that is not even really addressed here. It does not have to do with how good the graphics are, for most of the public that is not a huge point anyways as they are a bit better, but still "HD" and thus the 360 and PS3 seem the same to the general public.

The problem is the fact that Sony keeps wanting to make the PS3 the home media hub. Not game console, not media player, not computer, but ALL of them at the same time. This has been proved over and over by comments of top project devs and creators of the system. This is why things like keyboards, internet browsers, DVR features, location free (slingbox), and removable hard drives come into play. If you remember they tried to do the same thing with the PS2 and failed completely with their linux addon pack.

The issue is this is NOT what the consumers see it as, at least in America. We see the Playstation as a gaming console to be compared with the Xbox, Wii, Sega of the past, etc. All this other fluff that Sony keeps trying to push usually only ends up being appreciated by a small percentage of consumers (mostly the vocal groups online so we hear about it a lot on the interwebz...) and for the rest just causes confusion. Look at the PS3 now, for many it has turned into a bluray player that can I guess play games too. I know numerous people that have bought it as such. It is even advertised with Bluray players in a lot of circulars, not with the other game consoles.

Sony needs to target the core market more and quit being so spacy about things and trying to take over all the home technology and shove it into one box, it is too early for that and by focusing resources on that they are loosing their core market piece by piece.

I was a huge PS fan before the PS3, I even was planning on the PS3 over the 360. But the core features of gaming just are not there in comparison IMO. Exclusives, Online, etc. is all lacking at this point, and no matter how much Sony promises to improve things (like the Online), I have yet to see it in what has now been almost 2.5yrs on the market.

 

[ChristmasGT]

That makes both of you wrong, perhaps you should do some reading on the Processor's powering the PS3 and 360. They both share the same core chip. You need to learn the difference between a core and a processor. The core is only the base chip, the processor is all of the features put on top of that core.

Either way, Go take a look at Killzone 2. The graphics on that game pretty much end the argument anyhow. There is nothing on my 360 that even comes close.

Yep, either this month or last months Game Informer has an article about the lead designer of the IBM team that was working on the CELL for Sony, and after time Microsoft stepped in and wanted something close to it but didn't want to wait as long. I need to read it again but it's a great article.

Here's a good quest though, since consoles generally use GPU based products from Nvidia and ATi I wonder if we're going to see a quantum leap like we did from the 7xxx to the 8xxx series, that should be really exciting.

 

[stop!theradio]

I wonder if we're going to see a quantum leap like we did from the 7xxx to the 8xxx series, that should be really exciting.

I really hope so. I mean, the graphics on current gen consoles are certainly way better than the generation before them - but somehow, I was expecting more.

 

[htphm42]

That makes both of you wrong, perhaps you should do some reading on the Processor's powering the PS3 and 360. They both share the same core chip. You need to learn the difference between a core and a processor. The core is only the base chip, the processor is all of the features put on top of that core.

Either way, Go take a look at Killzone 2. The graphics on that game pretty much end the argument anyhow. There is nothing on my 360 that even comes close.

Please take a read: http://dlb-network.com/2009/01/chip-architect-speaks-about-xbox-360-and-ps3-creation/

Interesting stuff actually. PS3 wants to be the next best thing, Microsoft stayed with the tried and true. Both IBM teams worked side by side, but on two different chip.

Quote from the developers:
“At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they’re pretty equal.”

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

lol at all the sony famboys in here


"hard to program for is a good thing"

yeah, OK........

*looks at Nintendo raking in the dough like no tomorrow*

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

360 isn't even close to being as powerful as PS3. PS3 has double the theoretical power as the 360 and depending on what devs do with the Cell, they will be able to tap that power. But who cares about numbers? The proof is in the games and right now the PS3 is blowing 360 graphics out of the water with about half it's resources, while the 360's best looking game (Gears 2) was said by the developers to be taking the 360 to it's max.

bhwahahahahahhahahahahah OK whatever you say......links to back that crap up plz

 

[pigpen]

Uh, yeah.... It's bullshit. Do people actually believe that they were well thought out enough to purposely think something like this through, but all the other shit that has gone horribly wrong for the PS3 was..... what?

 

[StryderxX]

360 isn't even close to being as powerful as PS3. PS3 has double the theoretical power as the 360 and depending on what devs do with the Cell, they will be able to tap that power. But who cares about numbers? The proof is in the games and right now the PS3 is blowing 360 graphics out of the water with about half it's resources, while the 360's best looking game (Gears 2) was said by the developers to be taking the 360 to it's max.

Someone's been drinking the Sony koolaid! The Cell and the Xenon are incredibly similar. The Cell has one PPE core with 8 SPUs. Each SPU can execute one thread. The Cell used with the PS3 has one SPU disabled (for parity) and one SPU is constantly used to run the XMB. That leaves 6 SPUs for games etc (6 threads per clock). The Xenon is a tri-core Power PC processor (3 X PPE). Each core can render 2 threads simultaneously (3 X 2 = 6 threads per clock). Both CPUs run at 3.2 GHZ. At the end of the day the IBM engineer was correct when he stated that both CPUs are very similar in real world conditions.

 

[HardOCP News]

For all the people talking about how "great" PS3 exclusives are, I have this to say:

For every MGS4, there is a Haze
For every Killzone 2, the is a Lair
For every LittleBigPlanet, there is a Heavenly Sword

...and so on and so on and so on.

Haze and Lair did so poorly and took so long to develop that the studios that made them went out of business.

 

[StryderxX]

For all the people talking about how "great" PS3 exclusives are, I have this to say:

For every MGS4, there is a Haze
For every Killzone 2, the is a Lair
For every LittleBigPlanet, there is a Heavenly Sword

...and so on and so on and so on.

Haze and Lair did so poorly and took so long to develop that the studios that made them went out of business.

The studio behind Heavenly Sword (Ninja Theory) got burned hard as well. The sad part is that whatever they learned while developing HS will be a waste if they decide to create new IP on another platform.

 

[kllrnohj]

Sorry, not even close. The 360 has no where even close to the same power. Oh and btw they share the same core processor, sony just has more cores.

Actually, I *AM* correct, you just have poor reading comprehension skills. I said GPU power. The PS3's CPU is twice as powerful as the 360's, but CPU power is pointless. Just like a Core 2 Quad is no faster than a Core 2 Duo in games, neither is the PS3's cell vs. the 360's Xenon. The 360 has a more powerful GPU than the PS3. The PS3's GPU is a 7900GT with its memory bus cut in half, thats it. The 360's GPU is somewhere between the X1900 and 2xxx series, with 48 unified shaders. It was, I believe, the first GPU with unified shaders (or at least the first from ati or nvidia).

I'm sorry, but the 360 is simply more powerful in the graphics department. The Cell in the PS3 is going to go largely wasted by games.

 

[Dekoth]

Please take a read: http://dlb-network.com/2009/01/chip-architect-speaks-about-xbox-360-and-ps3-creation/

Interesting stuff actually. PS3 wants to be the next best thing, Microsoft stayed with the tried and true. Both IBM teams worked side by side, but on two different chip.

Quote from the developers:
“At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they’re pretty equal.”

Dodging the fact that I already proved you wrong by changing the direction?

As far as he feels both machines are pretty equal that is fine and dandy. However fact remains in 3 years of development the "easier" to program for 360 doesn't have anything that comes close to touching Killzone 2.

 

[Dekoth]

Actually, I *AM* correct, you just have poor reading comprehension skills. I said GPU power. The PS3's CPU is twice as powerful as the 360's, but CPU power is pointless. Just like a Core 2 Quad is no faster than a Core 2 Duo in games, neither is the PS3's cell vs. the 360's Xenon. The 360 has a more powerful GPU than the PS3. The PS3's GPU is a 7900GT with its memory bus cut in half, thats it. The 360's GPU is somewhere between the X1900 and 2xxx series, with 48 unified shaders. It was, I believe, the first GPU with unified shaders (or at least the first from ati or nvidia).

I'm sorry, but the 360 is simply more powerful in the graphics department. The Cell in the PS3 is going to go largely wasted by games.

You are confusing your PC experience with a console. Consoles do not operate on the same principles that PC's do. While in a PC GPU and Ram are everything, in a Console that simple isn't true. All you have to do is look at the best games on any console through the years and compare their power to a PC. You will find that without fail they are significantly behind the PC in the GPU and Ram department and most of the time the cpu as well and yet offer a better gaming experience on the same game.

 

[phide]

That makes both of you wrong, perhaps you should do some reading on the Processor's powering the PS3 and 360. They both share the same core chip.

They both utilize the PPE in their configuration, but Cell doesn't simply have "more cores" (your words, not mine). Your statement gave the impression that the Cell is identical to Xenon except with "more cores", which is plainly inaccurate.

 

[InCogneato]

I find it cute how people are saying the Cell is useless for graphics. It's actually not. The Cell is useful for graphics, among other things, and is dependent on what developers do with it. In fact, the Cell can be programmed to run a game all by itself.

But like I said before: THE PROOF IS IN THE GAMES. Everyone is giving their opinion, or their "expert analysis" like it matters, when... it really doesn't because the proof is right before our eyes. PS3 has the best looking games, period. And not by a little, but by a lot.

The comments and discussion going on in this thread is reminiscent of 2007. A lot has changed in between then and now. Go do some reading. I'm outta this thread.

P.S. ***THE PROOF IS IN THE GAMES*** This is irrefutable, so don't even try.

 

[kllrnohj]

I find it cute how people are saying the Cell is useless for graphics. It's actually not. The Cell is useful for graphics, among other things, and is dependent on what developers do with it. In fact, the Cell can be programmed to run a game all by itself.

But like I said before: THE PROOF IS IN THE GAMES. Everyone is giving their opinion, or their "expert analysis" like it matters, when... it really doesn't because the proof is right before our eyes. PS3 has the best looking games, period. And not by a little, but by a lot.

The comments and discussion going on in this thread is reminiscent of 2007. A lot has changed in between then and now. Go do some reading. I'm outta this thread.

P.S. ***THE PROOF IS IN THE GAMES*** This is irrefutable, so don't even try.

It is refutable. I have yet to see a game on the PS3 that looks oh so amazing compared to the 360. Granted, I don't own a PS3, but a couple of my friends do. Heck, most of the games that exist on both systems look better on the 360, not the PS3.

So by your own logic, the 360 is more powerful since the "proof is in the games" and games on both systems (apples to apples) look better on the 360

And the cell is largely worthless for graphics. The amount of free processing power (after other things like game logic, AI, physics, etc... all get their slice of CPU time) is no where near enough to offload much rendering, and the GPU will be able to do it faster anyway. What you want to see is essentially SLI between a GPU and a CPU. While technically possible, the returns just aren't there.

You are confusing your PC experience with a console. Consoles do not operate on the same principles that PC's do. While in a PC GPU and Ram are everything, in a Console that simple isn't true. All you have to do is look at the best games on any console through the years and compare their power to a PC. You will find that without fail they are significantly behind the PC in the GPU and Ram department and most of the time the cpu as well and yet offer a better gaming experience on the same game.

No, I'm not. Modern consoles *ARE* PCs, just with a PPC CPU instead of an X86. And yes, consoles *do* operate on the same principals. Hell, the graphics APIs are even the same. The 360 uses DX9.0c, and the PS3 uses slightly modified OpenGL. Also, the only reason the 360 and PS3 can "keep up" with a PC is because they render at such a low resolution. Games on both systems render at 1280x720 or *lower*.

 

[Techx]

I'm glad I no longer purchase ANY sony products.. bunch of morons.. crap brand these days IMO

 

[daglesj]

Wow its like going back in time to 2006!

At the end one has to rate it how it appears to your peers. Out of my friends that own consoles, 14 have 360's for online play and 1 poor Billy-no-mates has a PS3! A few had Wii's but sold them after a few months.

Whichever way you look at it, hardware aside, Sony have screwed the pooch big time. Shame but there you go, arrogance will be your undoing.

 

[stop!theradio]

Dodging the fact that I already proved you wrong by changing the direction?

As far as he feels both machines are pretty equal that is fine and dandy. However fact remains in 3 years of development the "easier" to program for 360 doesn't have anything that comes close to touching Killzone 2.

Dude, get off it. That's bullshit. I'm getting the feeling that you've never even played KZ2. Am I right? Probably. It looks GOOD, there's no doubt about that, but read other people's posts who have actually PLAYED the damn game and who have PLAYED GOW2. Neither looks way better than the other. They both have their compromises that level each other out. GOW2 has a higher polygon count per-object than KZ2 as is purely evident just by looking at the game for a few moments. Where KZ2 does really shine, though, is the effects, which are amazing. I, personally, like a higher polygon count as opposed to a lower-polygon, effects-driven model, and appreciate GOW2's more subtle approach in regards to lighting and other effects.

 

[sd11]

I find it cute how people are saying the Cell is useless for graphics. It's actually not. The Cell is useful for graphics, among other things, and is dependent on what developers do with it. In fact, the Cell can be programmed to run a game all by itself.

But like I said before: THE PROOF IS IN THE GAMES. Everyone is giving their opinion, or their "expert analysis" like it matters, when... it really doesn't because the proof is right before our eyes. PS3 has the best looking games, period. And not by a little, but by a lot.

The comments and discussion going on in this thread is reminiscent of 2007. A lot has changed in between then and now. Go do some reading. I'm outta this thread.

P.S. ***THE PROOF IS IN THE GAMES*** This is irrefutable, so don't even try.

I own a PS3, and even with Killzone and MSG I've yet to find anything on it that looks as good as some of what I've seen on the 360, which I also own.

It's fine as a media center/games console, but the 360 is a better console, with better looking games.

 

[sd11]

since I can't edit my own damn post for some reason, the only PS3 exclusive I've played that has remotely validated my purchase is Valkyria chronicles, great game.

 

[Dekoth]

Dude, get off it. That's bullshit. I'm getting the feeling that you've never even played KZ2. Am I right? Probably. It looks GOOD, there's no doubt about that, but read other people's posts who have actually PLAYED the damn game and who have PLAYED GOW2. Neither looks way better than the other. They both have their compromises that level each other out. GOW2 has a higher polygon count per-object than KZ2 as is purely evident just by looking at the game for a few moments. Where KZ2 does really shine, though, is the effects, which are amazing. I, personally, like a higher polygon count as opposed to a lower-polygon, effects-driven model, and appreciate GOW2's more subtle approach in regards to lighting and other effects.

I own both systems as both games as a matter of fact.

both are connected to a Samsung 42" 1080p HDTV and connected through HDMI.

There is a significant difference between KZ2 and anything on the 360. So sorry you are wrong and running on second hand information.

Both systems are fantastic, but when it comes to raw power and comparing the best of what each has to offer, the PS3 comes out on top. The problem with the PS3 is not the PS3, it is the idiot company behind the ps3.

 

[stop!theradio]

I own both systems as both games as a matter of fact.

both are connected to a Samsung 42" 1080p HDTV and connected through HDMI.

There is a significant difference between KZ2 and anything on the 360. So sorry you are wrong and running on second hand information.

Both systems are fantastic, but when it comes to raw power and comparing the best of what each has to offer, the PS3 comes out on top. The problem with the PS3 is not the PS3, it is the idiot company behind the ps3.

Ha ha, yeah, and I'm not playing both systems on a 65" Samsung DLP 2008 model.

If you're a fellow owner of both systems and both the games, then I don't see how you're saying that KZ2 blows anything on 360 out of the water. It simply doesn't, and most agree. So I have to say that you're in the minority with that opinion. I will never deny that KZ2 looks amazing, but so does GOW1 and GOW2, and neither game blows any out of the water.

 

[InCogneato]

I own a PS3, and even with Killzone and MSG I've yet to find anything on it that looks as good as some of what I've seen on the 360, which I also own.

It's fine as a media center/games console, but the 360 is a better console, with better looking games.

Ha ha, yeah, and I'm not playing both systems on a 65" Samsung DLP 2008 model.

If you're a fellow owner of both systems and both the games, then I don't see how you're saying that KZ2 blows anything on 360 out of the water. It simply doesn't, and most agree. So I have to say that you're in the minority with that opinion. I will never deny that KZ2 looks amazing, but so does GOW1 and GOW2, and neither game blows any out of the water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTvYPiEi4eU

feel embarassed

 

[sd11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTvYPiEi4eU

feel embarassed

A shitty low res youtube vid that doesn't show squat that's utter desperation.

Look I know how it feels. I bought a PS3 and it sucks to see every game that comes out on both platforms look better on the 360 and in most cases run better. I feel ripped off as well.

But, I don't need to try and justify the purchase. V Chronicles did that for me.

The thing is, if given the chance I'll buy on the 360 over the PS3.

 

[InCogneato]

A shitty low res youtube vid that doesn't show squat that's utter desperation.

Look I know how it feels. I bought a PS3 and it sucks to see every game that comes out on both platforms look better on the 360 and in most cases run better. I feel ripped off as well.

But, I don't need to try and justify the purchase. V Chronicles did that for me.

The thing is, if given the chance I'll buy on the 360 over the PS3.

you cant see the "view in HD" link right under the video? so much for your credibility on what game *looks* better

p.s. im a pc gamer

 

[InCogneato]

p.s. im a pc gamer

which means i can play all your 360 games in better quality. in case you didnt pick up on that.