Support NeoGAF

[Aeriscloud]

I still want a batarang controller...

Is anyone here still rocking their PS3 Phat?

Yeah, Kojima edition.

 

[Musiol]

I still want a batarang controller...

Is anyone here still rocking their PS3 Phat?

Yup, I've got one since EU launch. Never had any major problems with it. But I've decided to move on to slim version 'cause it's a lot smaller than older one.

 

[Noshino]

Over-promised and under-delivered. Even though the system had a solid second half of it's life, no doubt the first half was a total mess.

Uh

Full HD
Blu-Ray
Ability to use any 3rd party HDD
Ability to use any 3rd party peripheral
Free Online
Built-in wifi
Ability to share digital content with other people

All of that while still being around 600 bucks.

High price of entry for what was sold as a game console? sure, but for what the PS3 offered, it was a steal.

 

[ZhugeEX]

Uh

Full HD
Blu-Ray
Ability to use any 3rd party HDD
Ability to use any 3rd party peripheral
Free Online
Built-in wifi
Ability to share digital content with other people

All of that while still being around 600 bucks.

High price of entry for what was sold as a game console? sure, but for what the PS3 offered, it was a steal.

Not everyone wanted to get a second job though

 

[biggersmaller]

Bought it at launch. I'm so sad my phat died. Also, it still bothers me people talk endlessly about the $599 price when it was $499...which is still too high for a launch system.

 

[Drunkensamurai]

One of the best E3 press conf ever.

 

[EdReedFan20]

I wonder how much better things would have gone for devs (especially earlier on) if the PS3 had unified RAM. Like others have said, the GPU should have been better.

Also, I am of the mind that Cell was not a failure, the problem with it was that it was so archaic compared to competing PC-based architectures. Think of it this way, to a 3rd Party Publisher, PC-based architectures is so well known, it could be thought of as a native language to them, whereas Cell would be a foreign language and to understand it they would have to take time to learn a new language. 3rd Party Publishers were not (for the most part) going to learn Cell when they could more easily (and less expensively) develop using the PC architecture for PC/360 and port the game over to PS3. It didn't make much business sense to them to learn it. Early on, I think this is one reason why the gap between versions was so vast. On the flip-side, look at Sony's 1st Party output. They obviously were forced to learn Cells intricacies. Many of the most impressive games from last gen came from them. They seemed to learn Cell inside and out. I mean, look at what happened when ND had started porting TLOU to PS4. It was so optimized for Cell, it was a mess to bring over to X86 at first.

So, I am wondering for those that had PS3's what would you have preferred:
A: As released
B: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and Cell (Imagine what ND would've been able to accomplish with that)
C: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and CPU-based Architecture (Essentially PS4/XB1 (and 360, too?))
D: Or Ken's crazy concept of no GPU and instead it had Dual Cell Processors.

As hard as it was for 3rd Parties with Cell, I kind of would want to pick B. I really would've like to seen what the 1st Party devs could do with unified RAM and a better GPU coupled with Cell.

 

[xillyriax]

Are those launch units worth much on the used market? Girlfriend barely uses her's and looking to swap it out with a newer one before the YLOD hits.

 

[Concept17]

Besides the really high polygons per models and scripted animation and physics, it does not look as impressive now.

It is too bad PS4 took the budget hardware route, we will have to wait for PS5 to beat this outright.

It was surpassed awhile ago.

 

[ZhugeEX]

I wonder how much better things would have gone for devs (especially earlier on) if the PS3 had unified RAM. Like others have said, the GPU should have been better.

Also, I am of the mind that Cell was not a failure, the problem with it was that it was so archaic compared to competing PC-based architectures. Think of it this way, to a 3rd Party Publisher, PC-based architectures is so well known, it could be thought of as a native language to them, whereas Cell would be a foreign language and to understand it they would have to take time to learn a new language. 3rd Party Publishers were not (for the most part) going to learn Cell when they could more easily (and less expensively) develop using the PC architecture for PC/360 and port the game over to PS3. It didn't make much business sense to them to learn it. Early on, I think this is one reason why the gap between versions was so vast. On the flip-side, look at Sony's 1st Party output. They obviously were forced to learn Cells intricacies. Many of the most impressive games from last gen came from them. They seemed to learn Cell inside and out. I mean, look at what happened when ND had started porting TLOU to PS4. It was so optimized for Cell, it was a mess to bring over to X86 at first.

So, I am wondering for those that had PS3's what would you have preferred:
A: As released
B: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and Cell (Imagine what ND would've been able to accomplish with that)
C: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and CPU-based Architecture (Essentially PS4/XB1 (and 360, too?))
D: Or Ken's crazy concept of no GPU and instead it had Dual Cell Processors.

As hard as it was for 3rd Parties with Cell, I kind of would want to pick B. I really would've like to seen what the 1st Party devs could do with unified RAM and a better GPU coupled with Cell.

Good post.

I'd probably go with B as well tbh.

C would be the second option.

 

[pukko]

No BananaShock?

I still think Sony should have made a very limited PS3 edition with the batarang, just to show that they had some humor and to meet the rage that went on all over the web. Though everything backfired back then, so who knows. Perhaps to celebrate the 75 million WW sales or something would have been better..

 

[border]

Uh

Full HD
Blu-Ray
Ability to use any 3rd party HDD
Ability to use any 3rd party peripheral
Free Online
Built-in wifi
Ability to share digital content with other people

All of that while still being around 600 bucks.

High price of entry for what was sold as a game console? sure, but for what the PS3 offered, it was a steal.

Except nobody really cares about any of that stuff. Unless you were balls to the wall excited for BluRay none of those features were worth paying $200 more than the nearest competing console.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Remember streaming this back on Gamespot live. Man, that stream was a complete mess. Got all hyped when the MGS4 trailer rolled and then the stream just died. lol

Good times. Great PC. Shame how it all went afterwards. Crazy Ken was crazy.

 

[Majine]

Their presentation slides sure were ugly back then

 

[KyleCross]

First time seeing this E3 conference actually. Man, half of the games featured during the new IP montage have never been released. Ni-Oh, Eyedentify, Fifth Phantom Saga, and Killing Day. Only Resistance, Warhawk, MotorStorm and Heavenly Sword made it, which is interesting in and of itself as I know Heavenly Sword got pushed aside and labeled a God of War rip-off often... when this trailer (which looks close to the finished project) was unveiled just a couple months after the original God of War released, never knew that.

 

[RomanticHeroX]

The $300 360 launch SKU is the one that had no hard drive or HDMI. The "Elite" $400 one had an HDMI port and included a hard drive, so the only thing you needed to buy separately for it that you didn't need to buy for the PS3 was the wi-fi adapter.

The Elite 360 wasn't available at launch, that was a separate thing that came after the PS3 launch. At the time the PS3 launched no model of 360 was available with HDMI out.

 

[EdReedFan20]

Good post.

I'd probably go with B as well tbh.

C would be the second option.

Thanks. I am curious what D would have resulted in though.

 

[Zombie James]

Uh

Full HD
Blu-Ray
Ability to use any 3rd party HDD
Ability to use any 3rd party peripheral
Free Online
Built-in wifi
Ability to share digital content with other people

All of that while still being around 600 bucks.

High price of entry for what was sold as a game console? sure, but for what the PS3 offered, it was a steal.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. I'm well-aware Sony was selling an $800+ box for $600 and I personally saw the value in that. When I say the system was a "mess" I meant in execution. The GPU could have been better thought out. Developer support could have been way better. There was a stretch of time where everything that came out of a Sony executive's mouth was just wrong. They bet on the wrong horses software-wise (*cough*Haze*cough*). Stuff like that.

 

[MR ARCADE FOREVER]

Uh

Full HD
Blu-Ray
Ability to use any 3rd party HDD
Ability to use any 3rd party peripheral
Free Online
Built-in wifi
Ability to share digital content with other people

All of that while still being around 600 bucks.

High price of entry for what was sold as a game console? sure, but for what the PS3 offered, it was a steal.

At the time it was $600 to watch blu ray movies

 

[linkandzelda]

You guys were 12 when it was announced?!

I was 8, old man!

 

[massoluk]

Real time weapon switch while fighting giant enemy crab in a game based on actual Japanese history was the future, man.

 

[Gurish]

This was the best console reveal ever, yes it was mostly a bluff with fake demos and made up numbers (2 TF!!), but at the time when i watched it and believed it all it felt like a device from the future, they really made you feel that now you will experience CGi like graphics, the 360 looked so outdated by comparison, Sony sure knew how to sell this.

Too bad almost none of the amazing things we've seen was real, after 2006 the bubble burst.

 

[ZhugeEX]

Real time weapon switch while fighting giant enemy crab in a game based on actual Japanese history was the future, man.

Genji bombed hard.

 

[Mass Effect]

Very sad that Factor 5 wasn't around long enough to make a game for PS3. Would have love to see them do something original that was published by Sony.

Wait, what?

 

[Mobius 1]

It was hyperbolic, it was expensive, but it was ambitions and it paid off over time. What Naughty Dog, Polyphony, Santa Monica, Guerrilla and others accomplished with that hardware is still worth of every praise.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

remember wii60 anyone? lol

I think this is someone's (Jarosh?) masterpiece.

I wonder how much better things would have gone for devs (especially earlier on) if the PS3 had unified RAM. Like others have said, the GPU should have been better.

Also, I am of the mind that Cell was not a failure, the problem with it was that it was so archaic compared to competing PC-based architectures. Think of it this way, to a 3rd Party Publisher, PC-based architectures is so well known, it could be thought of as a native language to them, whereas Cell would be a foreign language and to understand it they would have to take time to learn a new language. 3rd Party Publishers were not (for the most part) going to learn Cell when they could more easily (and less expensively) develop using the PC architecture for PC/360 and port the game over to PS3. It didn't make much business sense to them to learn it. Early on, I think this is one reason why the gap between versions was so vast. On the flip-side, look at Sony's 1st Party output. They obviously were forced to learn Cells intricacies. Many of the most impressive games from last gen came from them. They seemed to learn Cell inside and out. I mean, look at what happened when ND had started porting TLOU to PS4. It was so optimized for Cell, it was a mess to bring over to X86 at first.

So, I am wondering for those that had PS3's what would you have preferred:
A: As released
B: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and Cell (Imagine what ND would've been able to accomplish with that)
C: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and CPU-based Architecture (Essentially PS4/XB1 (and 360, too?))
D: Or Ken's crazy concept of no GPU and instead it had Dual Cell Processors.

As hard as it was for 3rd Parties with Cell, I kind of would want to pick B. I really would've like to seen what the 1st Party devs could do with unified RAM and a better GPU coupled with Cell.

This one is big, especially with ballooning team sizes, 3rd party middleware, and so many PC devs crashing the party. If the 3 had done PS1/PS4 numbers, they would have adapted, but after 2006, why really bother that hard, you know?

These staggered sea change console transitions are always so ugly; the emerging requirements of HDs, heavy on-line-integration, massively different ways games were designed and aimed and percieved, and the afforementioned move away from unique, steep learning curve-sporting architecture makes for danger launching big, small, early late. 4->5 was like this with the cartridge/sprite/2D to optical/polygon/3D change too.

 

[EdReedFan20]

Wait, what?

Meh game*. Awesome soundtrack.

*Improved with controller patch. Once the game was patched, it played a lot better. However, game play design was an issue later in the game. It was something that I think Factor 5 had issues with in Rogue Sqaudron as well, but I overlooked it due to my love of Star Wars and the utter brilliance of those games. In RSII. some levels they ask too much of the player. For, in the Battle of Endor level, you needed to first attack Tie Fighters, then a Star Destroyer, then two Star Destroyers, and then more stuff (all with 3 lives). In Lair (in level 11?), after

Spoiler

you switch sides

you need to protect the refugees from the encroaching army, defeat their bull-like creatures, defeat the dragons in the sky, defeat the Naval strikes from the lake, and finally you need to destroy a dam to flood the enemy army. Most of this must be done concurrently. To me that is ridiculous. The level always failed for me because the refugees kept dying.

 

[ironcreed]

Feeling old for sure. I was 28.

At any rate, I remember finally getting my fattie in February '07 and thought it was such a high end console. It was built like a tank and looked so sleek. I loved the system to death straight out of the gate.

 

[AmyS]

So, PS3 is 2TFlops, PS4 is 1.8 TFlops. Tech from the future indeed.

Of course, most of that was Nvidia's fuzzy math aka 'NvFlops'.

Same with the OG XBox, they claimed NV2A GPU was '80 GFlops' but it was more like ~20 GFlops. (21.6 GFlops for entire XBox, according to a book: Opening The Xbox).

Anyway, real PS3 (peak) performance figures were 218 Gflops for CELL, 176 GFlops for RSX.
Xbox 360: 115 GFlops for Xenon CPU - 240 GFlops for Xenos GPU. So Xbox 360 and PS3 were fairly close to each other overall. Each had clear strengths over the other in different areas.

 

[Super_Cobra]

I bought my PS3 when I was 16 and saved money from a summer job to buy it. Best system of last gen. I remember I downloaded so many divx movies and songs to it. Had albums of my pics.
And the games were freaking awesome.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Uh

Full HD
Blu-Ray
Ability to use any 3rd party HDD
Ability to use any 3rd party peripheral
Free Online
Built-in wifi
Ability to share digital content with other people

All of that while still being around 600 bucks.

High price of entry for what was sold as a game console? sure, but for what the PS3 offered, it was a steal.

For movies you mean.

It's known by now that games that gen were natively sub-HD and upscaled to HD resolution, right?

So, I am wondering for those that had PS3's what would you have preferred:
A: As released
B: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and Cell (Imagine what ND would've been able to accomplish with that)
C: Unified RAM, Better GPU, and CPU-based Architecture (Essentially PS4/XB1 (and 360, too?))
D: Or Ken's crazy concept of no GPU and instead it had Dual Cell Processors.

As hard as it was for 3rd Parties with Cell, I kind of would want to pick B. I really would've like to seen what the 1st Party devs could do with unified RAM and a better GPU coupled with Cell.

This is my choice as well. IMHO the Cell wasn't the main thing that held devs back on PS3 at first. They could've learned it if the money was there, and early sales were pretty good overall. They forced themselves to learn Emotion Engine after all and that was even more difficult to work with (factoring in the rest of PS2's architecture) than Cell.

No, what really set them over the edge was the lack of unified memory and the weak-sauce GPU. Almost every early/mid-gen PS3 multiplatform game suffered a visual deficiency compared to the 360 versions, so it's clear the GPU was at fault and lack of available RAM for games the 2nd biggest issue. Couple that with the Cell difficulties and it was too much for most devs to handle in bothering with parity between the two for some years.

 

[Lion Heart]

What a legendary console, I'd place it firmly in second bhind the PS1 in terms of enjoyment derived from is life cycle.. Here's hoping ps4 can live up.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Of course, most of that was Nvidia's fuzzy math aka 'NvFlops'.

Same with the OG XBox, they claimed NV2A GPU was '80 GFlops' but it was more like ~20 GFlops. (21.6 GFlops for entire XBox, according to a book: Opening The Xbox).

Anyway, real PS3 (peak) performance figures were 218 Gflops for CELL, 176 GFlops for RSX.
Xbox 360: 115 GFlops for Xenon CPU - 240 GFlops for Xenos GPU. So Xbox 360 and PS3 were fairly close to each other overall. Each had clear strengths over the other in different areas.

The difference being that Cell was able to be used for graphics tasks, and so you take that CPU and use it to run Xenon level CPU algorithms(a simple task for CELL), and then use the rest on GPU tasks. This is what elevated it far above 360 in multiplats. When coded for specifically, Cell+RSX was able to visually blow past 360's GPU only.

If the PS3 had had a better GPU to start with on top of Cell, and unified memory, the gen probably would have been a slaughter in terms of performance between SKU's. Of course that probably would have set them back atleast a year or two, in which 360 would have acquired even more of the market.

Imagine PS3 coming out in like 2007 or 8, after the 360's second generation games like the monster that was Halo 3, COD4, Bioshock and the like.

 

[Komo]

Goddamn. Last generation's console reveals were so fun.

This gen just feels so dull and subdued in comparison. Not memorable at all ... Well, apart from the Xbone DRM junk

Gotta say though. I still use my launch PS3 on a weekly basis. I love this thing so much. Thank you Sony for making such a beast of a console

 

[klee123]

Great system.

Shame the PS4 isn't nearly as ambitious and as advanced for its time as PS3 for its timeimho.

Considering that the PS3 undid all the profits of the PS 1 and 2 and struggled out of the gate with inferior ports, I don't blame them for going for a more conservative approach.

 

[BeforeU]

Good times.

 

[sn00zer]

I remember arguing with my friends that yes all of those videos were actual gameplay..... I was so convinced....it hurt

 

[BuffetChamp]

One thing I've always liked about Sony, those guys always know how to hot dog it at E3. Theyre the Ric Flair of gaming companies. Woooooo! 10 years ago and people still remember the craziness of that E3, for better or worse mind you. Ha! Good times.

 

[Elitist1945]

Best console ever.

 

[Apdiddy]

Wait, what?

Ugh, I completely had blocked out of my mind somehow or thought the Panzer Dragoon guys did Lair.