Dragon’s Dogma and Devil May Cry director Hideaki Itsuno says devs ‘felt really let down’ by PS3 hardware

01011001

Gold Member
Yes, but 3rd party games that were designed around the cell trounced the 360 version pretty bad. I mean…look at ff13.

FF13 ran worse because it was most likely a low budget port job.

that game should have had no issue running at the same resolution on 360 given that the 360 has a better GPU and I'm pretty sure FFXIII doesn't really utilise the Cell's SPEs much.

I say pretty sure because the game is very light when emulated through RPCS3, and games that utilized the SPEs to a high degree are also way harder to emulate.
you can in fact easily run it with a 60fps patch even on pretty old CPUs

edit: also the 360 version ran smoother, it ran at a lower res but more consistent while the PS3 had sometimes massive drops
 
Last edited:

ToTTenTranz

Member
I'm pretty sure the PS3's Pixel Shaders 3.0 are a much more efficient and flexible way to get visual effects than adding several semi-transparent layers.
I get that they were used to do things one way and then had to change, but so did everyone else for the sake of moving things forward.

This has nothing to do with the PS3's suboptimal graphics architecture. Moving on to shaders was simply a necessity, as we can all see how pretty much all graphics processors released in the last 10 years use them as standard, mobile ones included.
 

Romulus

Member
My least favorite Sony console by miles. It feels like an alternative universe where Sony made shit decisions and hardware for 7 years.
 

Saber

Member
And I believe them, the PS3 really felt like something that was struggling to run some games.

But you know...this was like decades ago. Is that really relevant now?
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I was there and almost everything used against Saturn could have been put to SONY and the PS3. Not great launch software, expensive at launch and to manufacture, 3rd parties games looked and run worse and very different to programme for and complicated CPU set up

The End

It didn’t dawn on me, but you’re absolutely right.

I never considered the similarities in reception.
 
Last edited:

OCASM

Member
Yeah, the Gran Turismo guy said the same thing back in the day. How simple effects like heat haze were super expensive on PS3 while they were a breeze on a PS2.

The 360 didn't have that issue because it basically did the same thing as the PS2 by embedding ultra-fast ram on the GPU.
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
He clearly says it underperformed in some areas (transparency).

“It was strange with the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 that we could work with so many semi-transparent layers. We could just pile them up to make visual effects.

On the contrary, we couldn’t do this from the PlayStation 3 onwards. Everybody struggled during that generation. We really felt let down.”

he is saying it doesn't work the same. the ps1 and ps2 did transparancies with relative ease. Thats not the same as saying the ps3 gpu underpeformed. It just didnt do transparancies as well over all than the Ps1 or Ps2 did relatively speaking ... Notice he said.. "from the PS3 ONWARD" and that everyone struggled (TO CHANGE HOW THEY APPROACHED DEVELOPMENT) after the ps2.. GPUs were standardized. if all you have done was develop for PS1 and PS2 .. you had to relearn a new way.
 
With alot of 3rd party games that struggled on the ps3 compared to eggsbox £3.60 the ps3 had some great looking first party titles and not only that it was the best blu ray player on the market at that time
 

REDRZA MWS

Member
Yes, but 3rd party games that were designed around the cell trounced the 360 version pretty bad. I mean…look at ff13.
I was talking about games that didn’t suck. Nobody can deny that the cell was a very powerful cpu in certain applications, gaming wasn’t really one of them.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
Yea, PS3 was rough for a lot of games. That generation in general was insanely rough, so many studios that went under and the insane focus on multiplayer. Such a waste of time and effort.

Still, the PS3 will always be one of my favorite consoles of all time. Getting a PS5 gave me the same feeling as a PS3, something truly epic, though the PS3 certainly hasn't aged so well when it comes to frame rate and refresh time. The PS5 on the other hand, shit is BAAAAAAAALLLLLIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNN'
 
Last edited:

Kataploom

Member
Yeah I think this comment is being somewhat misconstrued because while he only says PS3, he only says PS3 because nobody in Japan gives a shit about Xbox so that is obviously what he is going to mention. In reality the PS2 was a bizzarre as fuck architecture maybe even moreso than the PS3, and because it sold so many units developers invested a ton of effort into getting the most out of it. The problem is the ways to get the most out of the PS2, and the capabilities of the system, were so out of whack with every console coming after it (including the 360) that it was a nightmare to totally rethink the graphic design of games, let alone deal with the jump to HD.

I mean the PS2 had freaking 2.4 gigapixels of fillrate for games that generally ran below 480i. Developers were literally just painting special effects (like alpha blending) onto the framebuffer because they had the fillrate to do so. That type of rendering was impossible after the PS2 because GPUs simply render graphics differently and fillrate was never the bottleneck.

Also, I'm no expert here but apparently the rendering method Pixar used may have been able to be adapted to a PS2-like system design very well, so if Sony kept doubling down on it with the PS3 and PS4 we could have some very, very interesting looking games right about now. Until raytracing at least, now raytracing is used because we have the computational ability to brute force it now.
I think you're right, this may be regarding shader-based graphic computing... It changed everything to everyone but Xbox
 

SScorpio

Member
People blame Kutaragi but I really blame Howard Stringer for cutting the budget.

Kutaragi was insane but he wasn’t an idiot, it was clear there was gonna be a strategy of developers using CELL in a more generic sense and mainly brute forcing things with the RSX early on. But when Stringer cut the budget it seemed like RSX never got the features/power they originally intended.
Has new information come out? My understanding is they weren't originally going to have a traditional GPU instead leaning on using an additional Cell. But during testing realized how bad the performance was and needed to quickly get an off the shelf part that met a budget constraint.
 
sony got too big of a boner off of cell's theoretical peak performance.
the whole e3 people were like "bro, this realtime?" and sony was like "yeah probably, maybe, he he" **wink wink kiss kiss**

and to think, the rumor was the ps3 would have 2 cells?
all software rendering? i mean, it's way more flexible, but cmon now.

cell is still cool, and parts of it are still extremely performant by today's standards.
but goddamn was the ps3 a greasy half-basked potato.
and still confused about the spiderman font.
and the idea to have like 3 hdmi ports.
and the boomerang controller just wtf.
 
Last edited:
Has new information come out? My understanding is they weren't originally going to have a traditional GPU instead leaning on using an additional Cell. But during testing realized how bad the performance was and needed to quickly get an off the shelf part that met a budget constraint.
Nothing new, I just remember the scuttlebutt before launch was they weren’t able to invest heavily on the RSX because Stringer told Kutaragi he was already over budget.
 

Mobilemofo

Member
I've cancelled premium. They had their chance..😄 for me, alot of turd has floated to the top, and it stinks. The classics section is also a joke. If this carries on, I'm going essential. 😂 Serious.
 

Mobilemofo

Member
sony got too big of a boner off of cell's theoretical peak performance.
the whole e3 people were like "bro, this realtime?" and sony was like "yeah probably, maybe, he he" **wink wink kiss kiss**

and to think, the rumor was the ps3 would have 2 cells?
all software rendering? i mean, it's way more flexible, but cmon now.

cell is still cool, and parts of it are still extremely performant by today's standards.
but goddamn was the ps3 a greasy half-basked potato.
and still confused about the spiderman font.
and the idea to have like 3 hdmi ports.
and the boomerang controller just wtf.
If you had the OG PS3, you had metal finish along the top, and a elongated flap which revealed two card slots and some usb slots. Kept mine when I got hard drive failure.
 

CamHostage

Member
Yeah I think this comment is being somewhat misconstrued because while he only says PS3, he only says PS3 because nobody in Japan gives a shit about Xbox so that is obviously what he is going to mention.

Right, he's not talking about PS3 being bad compared to 360, he's just saying, that era and that switch sucked for to-the-metal developers. (Sure, yes, 360 sucked a little less in several ways, but it's not the point of conversation here.)

...For a while, somebody in the room would come up with an idea and ask, How do we do this?, and the answer was, "You tell me!" They had lots of ways to experiment and to layer things and play with graphics in weird ways. (They also were dealing with mostly interlaced output and analog video display, meaning they could fudge some things as game designers had for generations and it might turn out looking cool.)

...Then this new PS3/360 generation came along, and when somebody asked, How do we do this?, the answer would be, "This way, and pretty much only this way."

There is more latitude than that in game design, of course, but when you're used to carving your own path and reaping the benefits of making your own way, having to follow the rules of the hardware takes some of your power away.
 
Last edited:
People worrying about the Series S and DEVs had to work with PS3 and its split memory etc. It was a complete POS for developers but no one in the fanbase seemed to care what DEVs had to wrestle with to work the system.

Now it seems to be a crazy thing that poor devs have a slightly smaller memory pool than they would like for 1440p. DEVs are paid to make things work and it's part of their job, Yes I wish it would be a piece of piss for them but some struggles come with the territory...nothing will come close to PS3 ever again I don't think.
Not to mention that Microsoft developed a number of solutions for devs to get more out of the XSS memory such as Sampler Feedback Streaming, and XVA and yet no developer has actually utilised it.
I tend to agree with DF on this when they say that the XSS will force devs to use those functions earlier and help with the overall performance on both the XSS and XSX in the long run.
 

Drew1440

Member
I'm not surprised, in the God or War (1&2) remake on PS3 everytime you would open a chest with a lot of semi transparent orbs bouncing out the frame rate would tank really hard for a brief moment.

I think that the water ripples in some water surfaces is missing, but that may be a different reason (missing feature?)...

Anyway, say what you will of what Sony ended up doing with it, the ps3 was a mess.
The PS2 had a lot of eDRAM bandwidth, around 48Gb/s for the graphics synthesizer alone, compared to the 6.4Gb/s the Xbox offered. This allowed the PS2 to have an impressive fillrate for its time, and allowed for effects like the head haze effect in Gran Turismo 3/4.

PS3 had around 25Gb/s for the RSX, but could tap into the cell XDR memory for additional bandwidth.
 

Yoboman

Member
Sounds like they would have struggled either way if they were expecting to just come in and keep using PS2 techniques

I recall Japanese devs fell way behind in graphical techniques for a long time there, and it wasn't limited to just PS3. Things like normal mapping and lighting techniques that were appearing across western games were just non existent in Japanese games. I mean you could argue they've only just started getting to grips with having open worlds in the last 5 years.

Alot of it was down to difference in development culture. Western devs were busy sharing techniques, building middleware, creating cross collaboration, using engines across multiple games and building on it. While Japanese devs were still in the habit of bespoke engines for every single title, trade secrets even from other teams in the same company

I think things like Unreal Engine being better localised now has helped bridge the gap
 
We just have to look at what japanese devs achieved in PS3 era vs western developers.
It was the point in history where the most famous japanese console developers were left behind.
 
The Japanese developers really struggled. Not really great showing of their skills when western developers basically took over the lead. HW might have not been to anyone's liking, but everyone else got better through. Until today a lot of the talent in Japan is focusing on handheld stuff, ie kind of one or two gens behind. Of course due to their own market but there seems to be way too few who get anything done on the high end level considering how big Japan is, how dominant Japan once was in the area and the overall tech affinity the country still has.

Would also have been interesting what a PS3 Pro could have been. Doubling the performance or specifically removing bottlenecks...
A GPU actually capable of fhd replacing the relative garbage RSX.
A cell with just a second main core in its last shrink and the same number of SPUs. I'd guess it would have benefited from being a dual core chip with those risc-like units around. Just being able to process the main thread(s) on two units and managing the small special tasks in those SPUs more easily.
 

Hastelander

Neo Member
You know what MS does not get enough credit for? The Xbox 360 controller for PC and x input. It made playing PC games on a controller extremely easy. I have no doubt that this move plus steam and others is what made PC gaming the juggernaut that is today.

Before 2005/2006 controller support on PC was dogshit.
You're right, as long as both the game and the pad support x-input. And even then, in some games, from specifically that era, things are weird with x-input. Prince Of Persia Warrior Within and Driver 3 have no issues working with any gamepad, x-input or not, you can map any action to any input, while The Two Thrones and Parallel Lines won't let you map the triggers in an x-input pad. Godfather is total mess no matter what.
 
You know what MS does not get enough credit for? The Xbox 360 controller for PC and x input. It made playing PC games on a controller extremely easy. I have no doubt that this move plus steam and others is what made PC gaming the juggernaut that is today.

Before 2005/2006 controller support on PC was dogshit.
Philly Spencer is about be awarded for this legendary contribution to the video game industry.
 

bender

What time is it?
Betrayal.

 

Griffon

Member
“For five years, all we had done was work with semi-transparent layers to make games look cool on the PlayStation 2. Once on PlayStation 3, we couldn’t even think of that technique. I think [developers] all over the world struggled.”

Yeah, the fillrate of the PS3 was dogshit, and at HD resolutions it was a fucking disaster.

The tacked on RSX at the last second was a dumb decision, they should've delayed that shit to 2007 with less stupid hardware and nobody would have complained (devs least of all).
 
Last edited:

sachos

Member
The fact that we're still paying for the mistakes from that generation says it all.

It hurts me that we still play them through streaming and many of those PS3 games are locked in that platform like MGS4, Resistance trilogy, Ratchet & Clank trilogy Remake, God of War remasters, etc.

Hopefully Sony finds a way to give us native PS3 games with PS Plus Premium. That would be amazing considering what they are giving us for now, lmao.
Thankfully RPCS3 is coming along well, Resistance 1 and 2 and all the GoW remasters are playable
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper
The PS2 had a lot of eDRAM bandwidth, around 48Gb/s for the graphics synthesizer alone, compared to the 6.4Gb/s the Xbox offered. This allowed the PS2 to have an impressive fillrate for its time, and allowed for effects like the head haze effect in Gran Turismo 3/4.

PS3 had around 25Gb/s for the RSX, but could tap into the cell XDR memory for additional bandwidth.
That's insane
 
As a 1 console owner during that gen I felt the same way about the ps3. Everything ran worse then the Xbox 360. I just made the best of it.
 
Top Bottom