I would agree with this, but then I thought of the debacle that was Skyrim and question whether or not you can really blame those problems on developer laziness alone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PSM: PS4 specs more powerful than Xbox 720
- Thread starter [Nintex]
- Start date
- Status
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
The Skyrim issues aren't really due to the CPU AFAIK, it's more due to the split RAM.
SneakyStephan
Banned
.... skyrim on ps3 has nothing to do with cell.
The savegame of bethesda games gets HUGE after a while, and because of the split ram indirectly (there is not enough ram which is the problem; and because it is split they can't use some of the vram for it, but again real the problem is not enough ram not the fact that it is split) causes the ps3 to run out of ram when loading all the data from it you get the horrible stutter.
A nice little 2 for one misunderstanding combo.
Let's get rid of split ram AND cell because Skyrim =\
Saying skyrim stutters is because of the cell is like saying it's because the ps3 has a touch sensitive button to open the disc drive.
Sapiens
Member
It didn't. I don't think the GC was capable of 720p and you can be damn sure if RE4 was developed for the XBOX, it would have ran in 16:9 progressive with little problem.
It's entirely due to the RAM; or rather, the save system that the engine employs. As Joshua Sawyer explained, eventually save files house too much state for the PS3's system RAM pool to handle effectively.
Combined with bad software design and/ori mplementation on Bethesda's part.
bgassassin
Member
None of the home consoles.
Sometimes you have to know when to walk away from a bad investment. No matter how much it may have cost you.
iamshadowlark
Banned
I think you have it backwards, there is certainly enough ram(512mb) in the PS3 if we take into account what they did on X360. The fact that it is split would suggest that they are only using the XDR and have no way in place to split the save file between the two pools. But maybe its just semantics anyway.
bgassassin said:
I definitely wouldn't call cell a bad investment. It didn't reach the penetration that STI hoped for but it certainly has shown its weight in gold, which is why IBM absorbed it into there other lines.
bgassassin
Member
For strictly gaming purposes it was a bad investment.
michaeltraps
Member
Thread titles like this make me nostalgic and giddy for the next console generation race 
badcrumble
Member
Right, because abandoning all PSN backwards compatibility so people can immediately say "PS4 has no games" would be so much better and totally avoid any retreads of their 2007-era problems.
Thread titles like this make me nostalgic and giddy for the next console generation race
Why would you be nostalgic for console wars? They're the worst thing about video games.
iamshadowlark
Banned
The gaming applications is where its light has shined the brightest, Im not sure what you are getting at. Cell has carried the PS3 this generation.
ElRenoRaven
Member
Meh. I love watching the fanboys murder each other in threads. I just laugh knowing that I have both consoles and my computer. Course next gen I'm leaning toward 1 console and PC but I haven't decided which and when I do pick won't give a shit what others think of it.
There are three consoles, fanboy.
Carried them to 3rd place.
No, XBOX SUX, it doesn't count
iamshadowlark
Banned
Im speaking on a purely developmental basis, but please do go on console warrior.
bgassassin
Member
Sounds like they'll be having some future problems then.
Cell carried them because they put so much focus on it. It had no choice but to carry the PS3. The decision to go with Cell affected other decisions, like the GPU.
When a company's mainstay is third-party support and you give them something that's a pain to develop for and they have a better option to target, it will come back on you. Same thing with the N64.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
i don't really care if PS4 is going to be more powerful than 720 or wiiu or whatever, i just want some god damn AA on the games. i know, i know... this dead horse has been beaten into a fine powder but seriously.
i'd just like to see all of the little annoying visual bugs and glitches disappear. texture pop in, UE3's dumbass texture loading problem, beyond ugly shadows ala PS3 skyrim, and unacceptable amounts of framerate drop. i don't need games to look like real life.
i'd just like to see all of the little annoying visual bugs and glitches disappear. texture pop in, UE3's dumbass texture loading problem, beyond ugly shadows ala PS3 skyrim, and unacceptable amounts of framerate drop. i don't need games to look like real life.
H_Prestige
Banned
PS3 got where it did because of shitty management and increased competition from MS. Cell helped a lot more than it hurt.
PS3 is in third place because they included a bluray drive. It delayed the system, and significantly inflated the price with no serious benefit to SCE.
Release adjusted, the PS3 beat the 360, at considerably higher prices. People were willing to buy the PS3, it would have performed far better without the nice, but ultimately worthless bluray drive.
Release adjusted, the PS3 beat the 360, at considerably higher prices. People were willing to buy the PS3, it would have performed far better without the nice, but ultimately worthless bluray drive.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
From all accounts it's not likely to happen. They rely more and more on updates/patches now through the work of the consumer to find them instead of taking the time to get all the bugs out. As games become more complicated so too will the glitches/bugs.
Each generation also sees them try and push the hardware as much as possible for the sake of realistic graphics. I myself would rather see a game be silky smooth in frame rate and no screen tearing, all while not having long load times. If these new systems can do proper 1080p resolutions and have at least a steady 30fps i'll be happy. 60fps is much preferred but that's asking too much.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Ok just FYI ps2 was harder to develop for than the ps3 ever was so your point is moot.
Also, regarding the system design, the fact that it effected other decisions is not bad at all. There is no evidence to support that going with a more traditional 2005/2006 design would've allowed Sony the power advantage they were seeking. In fact, considering how this gen has played out the opposite is implied.
The bluray drive was worthless? What reality do you live in?
badcrumble
Member
The reason the PS3 was hard to develop for was because the GPU was gimped and they *had* to use the Cell to make up for it (or ignore it and turn out a game that performed poorly). This is absolutely related to the Cell's high cost at launch, but that wouldn't be a factor in the next generation; a beefed-up Cell 2 paired up with a GPU that doesn't suck this time would be fine to develop for (especially since programmers are much more used to multithreading now anyway).
Louis Cyphre
Banned
It did benefit Sony as they are on the board for the blu-ray association are they not? Using the PS3 to propel and eventually become the new standard of physical media was the way to go for Sony in the long term. Seeing as how blu-ray also ties into other divisions within Sony. Luckily for them prices dropped significantly to manufacture which led to constant price cuts on the PS3.
The reality in which every system selling game on PS3 outside of GT5 is also on 360 and therefore has to conform to a DVD size limitation regardless of the 50GB size of dual layer blurays. Why, which reality do you live in?
Yes, it did, and it crushed SCE. Sony's bluray royalties will never counter balance the damage the drive's inclusion did to SCE.
Diatribe1974
Member
My pc will be more powerful than yours! SO THERE!
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
LOL. I can't see how anyone can seriously defend the Cell. It was and continues to be a nightmare to program for, which is why to this day, most multiplatform games look better on Xbox360.
The fact that some devs are prepared to jump through hoops and spend loads on extra R&D to wring the most out of this torturous architecture is a testament to their talent and skill, not a testament to the Cell.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
Id say we will see better framerates next gen.
This gen is probably the worst yet. Last generation was much better in this regard.
This generation, alot of power simply went to resolution. 1080p will be a better fit with next gen hardware.
This gen is probably the worst yet. Last generation was much better in this regard.
This generation, alot of power simply went to resolution. 1080p will be a better fit with next gen hardware.
The Nature Roy
Member
It'll be more powerful! (...ummm.... on paper, but it'll cost you $600 and the games will be generally technically inferior for the first five years, and by the time it starts to finally (barely) outpace the Xbox it'll be completely outclassed by relatively affordable PCs, but still MORE POWERFUL!)
badcrumble
Member
If anything, the PS360 effect is what saved Sony and Microsoft from getting steamrolled by the Wii. The fact that the two systems had rough parity allowed them to pool together a shared ecosystem that was big enough to lure developers to it as the 'larger' user base than the Wii user base (and certainly it was a user base that was more willing to purchase games).
I honestly think it makes more sense for Sony and Microsoft to aim to be pretty damn similar again this gen (but more powerful than the Wii U so they can shut Nintendo out of the third-party software game again). Yes, of course they'd each like to be marginally more powerful than the other so that multiplatform games run better on their system, but it's honestly better for them NOT to be an order of magnitude more powerful than the other, from a strategic point of view. Replicating the PC/PS3/360 development target ecosystem in a next generation is the best thing they can do for themselves.
But it didn't. So many games aren't even 720p.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
The point isn't moot seeing as how the PS2 was often the lead platform. This was the trouble with the PS3, unless it was the lead platform again often the games didn't perform as well as they should have. So when you have a developer who's focused on the PS2 from the beginning then PS2 consumers get the best product they can. Since the PS3 no longer shared that philosophy of having to be the lead platform, because it was no longer the must have system, developers didn't give it the attention it needed. Which in turn meant PS3 owners didn't get the best possible product at times.
Sony needs to get away from designing hardware like this and it seems they have with Vita.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Yep. Absolutely true. As a pure gaming device, bluray offers little. If Sony had just gone with a standard DVD drive, reduced cost further and released earlier then Xbox360 be very much in 3rd place.
Diatribe1974
Member
Yup, I agree. When so many games on the PS3 require a HDD install (just to avoid much of the Blu-Ray drive itself) shows that it's inclusion was pointless. Also, the size of our games has shown us that the extra storage offered by Blu-Ray vs. DVD9 has also been a bust for Sony as both the games on the 360 vs. PS3 offers no bonus.
With that being said, outside of gaming, I LOVE my Blu-Ray movie experience. I simply refuse to watch anything on DVD anymore and will only watch it on my Blu-Ray player.
badcrumble
Member
This only really works if you assume that without the blu-ray drive the PS3 would've had a level of success comparable to the PS1/PS2, which is serious speculation.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Why is it that GameCube/Xbox are OF COURSE more powerful when they release 18 months after PS2, but PS2 being more powerful than Dreamcast 16 months later is so impressive?
iKeepPlaying
Banned
So, when was MGS4 released on 360?
Will the PS4 most likely include a blu-ray drive? How about the X720?
badcrumble
Member
It is in third place worldwide, IIRC.
The best argument for a DVD drive and against Blu-Ray isn't hypothesizing about what would've happened, it's what StuBurns mentioned about how crossplatform games have to fit onto a DVD's level of space anyway. In my opinion, anyway.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Why? Bad framerates do not affect sales. Publishers and devs are not punished for low framerates, in fact the opposite is true. They know that a game that runs smoothly at 60fps but looks a bit plain will sell a lot worse then a game that runs at 20-30fps and looks a lot better. Next gen will be no different.
badcrumble
Member
It's using a blue laser diode, but not actual Blu-Ray because Nintendo hates licensing other people's technology even if economy of scale would save them money.
No, it doesn't at all. I said it wouldn't be third, not that it would be hugely first. In fact, if it'd just released at the same time as the 360, still with the bluray drive it would be ahead, but it would be further ahead than that if it was considerably cheaper, and the only way to do that was not to include bluray.
Yes, although MS probably won't include bluray movie playback.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
There are far too may tangibles to actually have a hard number to go by. Do we know how much blu-ray helped sell HDTV's? I realize Sony's TV division lost a bunch too but that's not because of blu-ray.
The PS2 by all accounts had the support of 3rd party software. Did coming out a year after the Xbox 360 hurt them? It didn't hurt the Wii. It didn't hurt the PS2 which came out after the Dreamcast. Yes price was a huge factor but even now with the PS3 at $250 it's still not running away from the others.
Sony just faced a new reality, Nintendo came out with a different experience. Microsoft came out stronger as well and yes the inclusion of blu-ray drove up the cost.
- Status