Support NeoGAF

[iamshadowlark]

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.

Tag Quote.

You have no idea what you are babbling about do you?

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.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Emitan]

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.

I don't know the proper term, but I knew they weren't licensing it, which is why I said "Blu-Ray technology" instead of just "Blu-Ray".

 

[Frankfurt]

But it didn't. So many games aren't even 720p.

"So many"? Haha. List them, then let's compare to the total number of games released.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Even the Wii U is using Blu-Ray technology.

From what i read they are using proprietary discs that can hold up to 25 GB of data.

 

[Emitan]

From what i read they are using proprietary discs that can hold up to 25 GB of data.

They're based off single layer Blu-Ray technology sans licensing fees.

 

[cyberheater]

Will the PS4 most likely include a blu-ray drive? How about the X720?

They already had a high capacity drive they could use:-

But I bet they'd love to go download only.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

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.

simply because the tech will be better at displaying good graphics and 1080p.

This gen most games struggled to have good graphics and 720p.

 

[jett]

From what i read they are using proprietary discs that can hold up to 25 GB of data.

They're blu-rays.

Just like the Wii uses "propietary 4.5GB discs" whatever they are DVDs.

 

[GQman2121]

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.

But I think for Sony overall (not just their gaming interest) that cost was worth it, regardless of their current position in the console war. Blu-ray is a pretty big deal and a good product for the current market.

Everyone is expecting the 'Next Box' to use BD for its games, right?

 

[Auto_aim1]

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.

No. Just no. PS3's development issues are not because of the Cell. It's mostly because they have to offload normal GPU tasks to the Cell, due to the GPU itself being inadequate, and the less available RAM makes the situation worse. I really hope they go with the Cell architecture again, as it has great potential.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

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.

I agree with this post. Unless your technical superiority comes as a total win button-like effect that requires little to take advantage of, the baseline for quality of multiplatform games will still be determined by the system that proves itself best for selling those games, not the most powerful one on paper. Whatever happens, Wii U won't likely be shut out from having roughly equivalent versions of multiplatform games that MS and Sony platforms get. Maybe this upcoming gen will resemble something closer to last gen.

 

[rdrr gnr]

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?

The one where every game I own is on one disc? The one where content is cut from games because it doesn't fit on DVDs? The one with GoW3 and MGS4? For a while there, more people picked up a PS3 because it played blurays than those who started purchasing it for games. Who gives a shit if it cost Sony money? I, for one, am glad they evolved their media format.

 

[KageMaru]

Sony has invested too much to not go with the Cell again. And at this point, its only a handful of lazy developers that don't at least reach parity for releases.

Parity isn't always possible between platforms, even with the best developers. It all depends on what the studio is trying to accomplish or how the game is designed, along with other factors of course.

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.

It's not really a nightmare for devs anymore. After 5+ years, the system and it's characteristics are well documented. The cell really did do more good than harm for the PS3, that's hardly debatable IMO.

Also games are hitting parity more often than not, any difference are negligible and hardly worth nit-picking over. We don't see Bayonetta differences all too often these days.

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.

To be fair, if there wasn't a blu-ray drive, it would have likely been cheaper, which was the biggest barrier to entry IMO.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Tag Quote.

You have no idea what you are babbling about do you?



What does that have to do with anything?

Well if you read the rest of it you'd know. The argument was about the PS2 being difficult as well. Difference is developers were kind of forced to adapt and often used the PS2 as the lead. It was the most popular choice to release your games on. When the PS3 is the lead platform they run into less issues, difference is the PS3 was not used nearly as much being the lead platform early on. That's why games were often inferior. Early on developers didn't see the need to work harder since the PS3 didn't have an astounding lead in sales.

 

[DCKing]

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.

For its power, it has underperformed. It shined brightest in those games only because it could compensate for a weaker GPU somewhat. For the billions of dollars of investment, a huge chip, $90 manufacturing cost, and the difficulty of 'getting it right', its performance has been very disappointing indeed. Microsoft's CPU stole components of the Cell, released a year earlier, and still gets over half its computation performance (and it has a better GPU to boot).

The Cell architecture has not been (publicly) improved since 2006 either. Why should they? For raw computing performance, GPGPUs have outclassed Cell since 2006. For networking and video performance, the CPU is too much a niche application and in most cases it's better to have a cheap ARM chip or some dedicated hardware do it. The PS3 was its largest seller and Cell wasn't even optimized for gaming.

There's absolutely no way Cell will be the PS4's primary CPU. If it's in there at all, it will be an additional processor, maybe doing various jobs like image post processing (upscaling, FXAA) and used primarily for backwards compatibility. As I said previously, the PS4 CPU will probably share its architecture with either the Wii U CPU or AMD's next generation of laptop APUs.

 

[michaeltraps]

Why would you be nostalgic for console wars? They're the worst thing about video games.

Well...

Meh. I love watching the fanboys murder each other in threads.

Pretty much this

 

[bgassassin]

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).

And they went with a gimped GPU because they were going to use Cell. Let's not forget there were rumors of them using multiple cells instead of a GPU. And IMO there is what we know as multi-threading, and then there is what Cell was. I wouldn't get my hopes up for a return of Cell in PS4.

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.

You missed the "and a better option to target" part, so it's not moot. I was fully aware of PS2 as I typed that.

And there is enough evidence to show that the decisions they did make took away a good amount of raw power advantages the console had. It does no good to have those "power advantages" is devs aren't able or willing to exploit them properly. The 360 became the primary development platform for multi-plat titles because of their decisions.
And in the end it left them in a similar boat as Nintendo where only the first-party titles were the real standouts on the console.

 

[cyberheater]

Tag Quote.

You have no idea what you are babbling about do you?

Feel free to enlightened me why Cell was such a good choice from a devs point of view. I'm all ears.

 

[StuBurns]

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.

No prior generation is a good working model for what would have happened in this one, because third party exclusives were always viable till now.

Sony knew the vast majority of whatever mattered on PS3 was going to be on 360 too. They couldn't afford to make the system vastly out perform the 360, so an obtuse architecture would mean developers would be forced to lead on PS3, making a slight (or nonexistent, I don't care to argue about that specific element) performance advantage, seem greater still. That only works if you assume publishers are going to care about the quality of the PS3 version, and what ultimately happened is, they didn't, and quite often, even now they don't. If the PS3 had sold shit hot straight away, everything might have lead on PS3, but the price was too high to ever make that possible, and the price was that high because of a bluray drive which was, at the very most, a luxury Sony could not afford.

The one where every game I own is on one disc? The one where content is cut from games because it doesn't fit on DVDs? The one with GoW3 and MGS4? For a while there, more people picked up a PS3 because it played blurays than those who started purchasing it for games. Who gives a shit if it cost Sony money? I, for one, am glad they evolved their media format.

I didn't say I don't like the bluray drive, I said it's why they're in third place. I do think PS3 is the best of the three systems, I loved having the bluray drive before the standalones were reasonable prices, I think it was a very nice addition that utterly shattered SCE for the generation.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

But I think for Sony overall (not just their gaming interest) that cost was worth it, regardless of their current position in the console war. Blu-ray is a pretty big deal and a good product for the current market.

Everyone is expecting the 'Next Box' to use BD for its games, right?

To me it makes sense. It will be a much faster drive which is partially the cause for mandatory installs on the PS3. You can also have more layers so in theory we could see 100GB blu-rays.

Sony's past shows how they went with a new format each time but Sony probably doesn't want to invest in an all new format again. They will just come out with better copy protection or something that still uses the same blue laser to have proper backwards compatibility. Microsoft used DVD which I think Sony still licences so going with blu-ray on the next Xbox isn't a huge deal for them.

I think we will see a major shift into cloud gaming so the physical media in which they choose might not be a big deal. Who knows, rumours are out there the next Xbox will be some sort of tablet.

 

[Emitan]

Well...

Pretty much this

True, I suppose. But it brings out the worst in people and shatters my barely held together fantasy that GAF is full of intelligent rational people.

Spoiler

says the guy who went insane in the media molecule thread yesterday...

 

[Auto_aim1]

And they went with a gimped GPU because they were going to use Cell. Let's not forget there were rumors of them using multiple cells instead of a GPU. And IMO there is what we know as multi-threading, and then there is what Cell was. I wouldn't get my hopes up for a return of Cell in PS4.

Yeah, the chances of them going with the Cell aren't that high, but there are a few reasons like BC and the lowered cost of manufacturing which could encourage them to go with it again.

 

[KageMaru]

Well...

Pretty much this

It's amusing, but to an extent. It also gets old when the same console warriors drag down a thread for their war when all I want to do is have an intelligent discussion.

Look at this thread, it's filled with 6 year old misconceptions and biased assumptions to how next gen will turn out. It gets so repetitive sometimes...

 

[badcrumble]

And they went with a gimped GPU because they were going to use Cell.

Yes, that's what I said in my post. I also pointed out that using a Cell wouldn't require them to gimp their GPU this time around.

I agree with this post. Unless your technical superiority comes as a total win button-like effect that requires little to take advantage of, the baseline for quality of multiplatform games will still be determined by the system that proves itself best for selling those games, not the most powerful one on paper. Whatever happens, Wii U won't likely be shut out from having roughly equivalent versions of multiplatform games that MS and Sony platforms get. Maybe this upcoming gen will resemble something closer to last gen.

The next-gen picture is going to be significantly complicated, though, by the fact that different consoles are going to be pushing wildly different interfaces and control methods. I think this is actually pretty shortsighted in some ways; everyone's trying to have some experiences that can't be replicated on the other consoles so they can keep *content* off of the other consoles while having unique/exclusive selling points, but it's quite clear at this point that the industry's preferred equilibrium is with a pretty standard controller (the PS3 and 360 controllers are pretty goddamn similar at the end of the day - and note that the industry pretty much ignored the SIXAXIS stuff from day one) and a rough sense of hardware parity, because that's what allows third parties to develop for all platforms.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I didn't say I don't like the bluray drive, I said it's why they're in third place. I do think PS3 is the best of the three systems, I loved having the bluray drive before the standalones were reasonable prices, I think it was a very nice addition that utterly shattered SCE for the generation.

Was bluray the absolute reason that the PS3 came out a year after?

 

[Louis Cyphre]

The one where every game I own is on one disc? The one where content is cut from games because it doesn't fit on DVDs? The one with GoW3 and MGS4? For a while there, more people picked up a PS3 because it played blurays than those who started purchasing it for games. Who gives a shit if it cost Sony money? I, for one, am glad they evolved their media format.

You're probably in the minority. I doubt many care if games come on multiple discs or not. We've seen it on the most popular system of all time, the PS2. The trade off has also meant mandatory installs on some games which a few may also feel as an inconvenience.

 

[KageMaru]

Was bluray the absolute reason that the PS3 came out a year after?

I'm not sure the timing of the launch was the issue, instead it was the price. If the PS3 launched at $400, it would have eclipsed the 360's WW install base some time ago IMO.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Was bluray the absolute reason that the PS3 came out a year after?

Yeah, there was a shortage of blue laser diodes which caused the delay, at least in Europe.

 

[StuBurns]

Was bluray the absolute reason that the PS3 came out a year after?

It delayed the system some months, bluray production went very poorly initially, maybe it was a whole year, 18 months in Europe in fact. And it is the absolute reason the system cost what it did and lost Sony per unit as much as it did.

I think it's a very nice aspect of the device as a user, and a terrible decision for them as a platform holder.

 

[[Nintex]]

2006/2007 was funny. Everyone waited for the PS3 but that didn't deliver what was promised so they were like: "Well might as well buy a cheaper Xbox with Gears now" and then it became clear that the RROD was more widespread than expected.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I'm not sure the timing of the launch was the issue, instead it was the price. If the PS3 launched at $400, it would have eclipsed the 360's WW install base some time ago IMO.

Is there some way to deduce the impact? I feel like timing was a bigger issue than price.

 

[AngelSoldier]

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?

Yeah but when a game like FF13 comes along and blow's it's Xbox counterpart out of the water, I'm kinda glad Sony went with Blu-ray.

 

[Dennis]

Which PC game looks like this again?

 

[StuBurns]

Yeah but when a game like FF13 comes along and blow's it's Xbox counterpart out of the water, I'm kinda glad Sony went with Blu-ray.

No doubt, it's a nice feature.

But look what happened with XIII-2. The 360 version wasn't up to scratch last time, so they go real time with most the cutscenes, the PS3 version is performing worse than last time around, and they brought the 360 version up to the PS3 version more or less.

The only reason the PS3 version of XIII was so much better was a later decision to go multiplatform. XIII-2 is now on par, and what was a huge advantage is now a minor one.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Yes, that's what I said in my post. I also pointed out that using a Cell wouldn't require them to gimp their GPU this time around.
The next-gen picture is going to be significantly complicated, though, by the fact that different consoles are going to be pushing wildly different interfaces and control methods. I think this is actually pretty shortsighted in some ways; everyone's trying to have some experiences that can't be replicated on the other consoles so they can keep *content* off of the other consoles while having unique/exclusive selling points, but it's quite clear at this point that the industry's preferred equilibrium is with a pretty standard controller (the PS3 and 360 controllers are pretty goddamn similar at the end of the day - and note that the industry pretty much ignored the SIXAXIS stuff from day one) and a rough sense of hardware parity, because that's what allows third parties to develop for all platforms.

I like this as well. Why have developers scrambling all over to suit certain hardware if the gamers themselves don't really care? I understand companies want to differentiate themselves so that you do buy their product but it just creates chaos for 3rd parties. How many will actually exploit the strengths of the Wii U? How many are actually taking advantage of the Playstation Move? How about Kinect, are we seeing big investments from 3rd party publishers or are they just smaller investments to see what happens?

SIXAXIS wasn't popular among gamers and that can be attributed to developers not utilizing it or people not caring in the first place. When you try and force a peripheral to work on other games is when troubles begin. We've seen it with SIXAXIS, we seen it with the Wii and now we are seeing it with Kinect.

 

[KageMaru]

Is there some way to deduce the impact? I feel like timing was a bigger issue than price.

Probably not since that situation never happened. The way I see it, many people who held out for a PS3 did pick up the cheaper 360 when the PS3 failed to live up to the hype as Nintex just mentioned.

Unless you wanted a blu-ray payer at the time, I could see many people picking up the cheaper console if they both performed the same in the end. There were PS3's sitting on the shelf ~1 month after launch, not due to any lack of games, but due to the high price tag and viable alternatives. Sounds logical to me.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Is there some way to deduce the impact? I feel like timing was a bigger issue than price.

I feel it's a combination of both, especially in the US, but mostly you have to blame the high price of the system. Because even the Wii launched later, and look where it is now.

 

[Forceatowulf]

Damn.. Next-gen really is on it's way, huh? *sigh* I would not have minded another 2 years.

Oh well, bring on the faulty first round of consoles and the early adopters dumb enough to purchase them like the lab rats they are.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Probably not since that situation never happened. The way I see it, many people who held out for a PS3 did pick up the cheaper 360 when the PS3 failed to live up to the hype as Nintex just mentioned.

Unless you wanted a blu-ray payer at the time, I could see many people picking up the cheaper console if they both performed the same in the end. There were PS3's sitting on the shelf ~1 month after launch, not due to any lack of games, but due to the high price tag and viable alternatives. Sounds logical to me.

This is my issue, though. I don't really think people did. They'll buy the new hot thing; I find 'loyalty' laughable.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

I'm not sure the timing of the launch was the issue, instead it was the price. If the PS3 launched at $400, it would have eclipsed the 360's WW install base some time ago IMO.

We will never know the real answer to this and could just be wishful thinking on your part. If it did launch at $400 what would the system be like? Sony was already losing money so if they didn't come out with blu-ray then what would be the cause for this surge in sales?

 

[Dennis]

Which PC game looks like this again?

 

[Frankfurt]

Didn't think so, Billychu.

Yeah but when a game like FF13 comes along and blow's it's Xbox counterpart out of the water, I'm kinda glad Sony went with Blu-ray.

Oh, FF13 did blow alright.

And nice how you ignore the other 200 multiplats that look better on 360.

 

[StuBurns]

Brand loyalty isn't a myth, but it's less that than consumer experience I think. Everyone knew what the PS2 was compared to the Xbox, and what happened with the Dreamcast. It was just good judgement to hold out a while and see what was going to happen, regardless of any personal feelings towards the platform holders.

 

[Pranay]

Those screens look great Dennis, but one thing i learn from GAF is never to be fooled by your screens -_-

 

[rdrr gnr]

I feel it's a combination of both, especially in the US, but mostly you have to blame the high price of the system. Because even the Wii launched later, and look where it is now.

Yes, but the Wii had a totally different base and word of mouth -- at least, in the end.

 

[bgassassin]

Yes, that's what I said in my post. I also pointed out that using a Cell wouldn't require them to gimp their GPU this time around.

I saw that, but our difference is in the reason why they went with a poor GPU. My first sentence probably unintentionally negated my intention. I don't attribute it to Cell's cost considering how much the GPU cost them based on early BOMs. I attribute it to them believing it wasn't really necessary to go with something better gaming-wise and it being more of a "last minute" decision. That's why I brought up the rumor about them using multiple Cells.

And as already mentioned by DCKing, current GPGPUs would make Cell unnecessary. They could get an OoO processor from AMD and make life much better for devs going forward. I see Sony being much smarter about that this time.

Yeah, the chances of them going with the Cell aren't that high, but there are a few reasons like BC and the lowered cost of manufacturing which could encourage them to go with it again.

That is true about BC, though I don't know how much lower manufacturing would be since they would make a more advanced version of Cell. But honestly I don't think BC has enough weight to make them do that. Especially since it seems pretty likely they are going with AMD over nVidia for the GPU.

 

[weekend_warrior]

It feels weird to be talking about PlayStation 4 right now. I really don't think we'll hear anything about it before GDC 2013, Sony needs to stay focused on the PS Vita right now.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Yes, although MS probably won't include bluray movie playback.

Given how MS wants Xbox to be the ultimate entertainment box for the living room, not including a Blu-ray movie playback would be a really stupid decision. People have their own collection of movies and want to watch it somewhere.

 

[Kinyou]

 

[Auto_aim1]

Yes, but the Wii had a totally different base and word of mouth -- at least, in the end.

But being the successor to the PS2 did give the PS3 a big advantage though. If any other hardware manufacturer except Apple released a system at $600, it would have been over in 2 years. In 2010, there were more PS3 slims (25mil+) out there than the fat model, which really shows how much the high price held the system back.