What exactly happened to the Playstation 3? - Page 2

They have a sign "PS3s available" in my local gamestop - saw it this morning when I went to pick up the burning crusade.

Isn't the PS3 HDMI only?

Not much people want to buy a PS3+a 3000$ tv with it just to get it too work i guess...

They changed that because it created a bit of a ruckus. They all have HDMI.

1. I know TVs and consoles are not the same thing. Look up the term "tongue-in-cheek," mmmk?

2. No, they don't. I do.

3. Then their argument is stupid, because it's not just a game console and Sony is losing money on each one. "Way overpriced" is a subjective term. I think what they mean is "way overpriced for me, because I'm a broke 15 year old."

Lastly, the PS3 WAS flying off the shelves and still is. It's only now that you can find one in some areas, speaking of anecdotal evidence.

That doesn't mean the market says anything or even that the price is the "issue." Boo-hoo...they only will sell 4.5m instead of 6! They're internal sales predictions for pete's sake.

Please, give me some articles that suggest this.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rt-R2-Today-11

And, no. The "broke 15 year old" thing is not what they mean. In fact, quite the opposite - many people, with other time and financial constraints, don't want to pay such a large sum for a console.

Which, by the way, I think most will argue that its main function IS TO PLAY VIDEOGAMES. It is a console, no matter how you dress it up. The only other valid argument is for the Blu-Ray player, in which case the console is a good deal (the web browser is a fine feature but far from game-changing, IMO). HOWEVER, if someone is just shopping for a console that plays videogames, and Blu-Ray is irrelevant to them, then yes, it does seem overly expensive. Don't put a condescending age label on it, I don't see many people (who don't have moderate interest in Blu-Ray) who can CURRENTLY justify the PS3 price. Again, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PS3.

I'm shocked that you're so consistently condescending in your posts when your arguments are rather tepid.

EDIT: Furthermore, I'm shocked that you would throw around age remarks when you're an educator.

Read other peoples' posts before flaming them, SDW2001. This clearly states the ineffective nature of ancedotal evidence.

I don't know...are you a child?

My buddy sent me an email today, telling me that the guy directly in front of him in line got the last Wii from the store, leaving my buddy empty handed.

Poor guy

I get the distinct sense that the Wii bandwagon has a certain, discernable fear of the PS3. That is, "are our Wii's going to be left as a fad when some truly great PS3 games, blu-ray videos, and broad HD acceptance come about in the next year or two."

I like the Wii too, but the negativity towards the PS3 just doesn't make sense. The difference between the two is like the difference between a Miata and an M5, a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro, a ping pong paddle and a tennis racket. There's plenty of market for both.

I think the negativity towards the Playstation 3 stems from two things. First is the whole rootkit fiasco, even though that was a different department of Sony entirely. The other being the fact that 15-year-old boys, the demographic most prone to untamed fanboyism, can't afford it.

Interestingly, it seems like there's a huge anti-Sony bias playing out in blogs and on forums. Yet when you ask people what system they'll likely buy in the future (one or two years out, when prices have dropped to reasonable), there's near unanimous support for the PS3. The haters are just an obnoxious minority.

And there you have a nearly universal truth, across all arguments, politics, situations, and cultures.

You're right that that line is thrown out there too often, but in this case it's genuinely true. Look at pretty much any poll of most-wanted next-gen systems. The PS3 tops them all, by a wide margin, especially in contrast to the pretty much full on vitriol it's received across the net.

I think that was true. The PS3 did have an enthusiastic fanbase amongst the core gaming audience. But you have to ask why that was.

There are two reasons. Sony's previous domination of the games market. And the way that Sony has hyped the PS3 prior to launch. The massive hype campaign, citing gigaflops and Cell processors led tech journalists and consumers to believe that Sony had the superior hardware. The war was over before it had begun. Sony's marketing machine are good at creating hype.

But since the launch I think that enthusiasm has collapsed. And the sales bear this out.

Why? Not because of a negative backlash on the Web - but because the product and the games are disapointing. Look at Gears of War and then look at a PS3 title and its suddenly hard to see what the extra money is delivering.

This is the second time this has happened now. Perhaps the PS3 should be re-named the PSP-Senior.

C.

You can't really argue about the Hardware, seeing as how the PS3 has nothing but 1st Gen Games.

As Graphics become more and more realistic, the margin between newer systems and older systems is going to drop. And when you compare a game that has been in development for a console that is already out, and thus has had a chance to tap out the hardware or come close, compared to the usual Launch Game Rush Development, the argument that Gears of War looks better or as good as any other PS3 game doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Sebastian

I have absolutely no idea what point you are making.

I'm assuming, but probably something along the lines of this:

Comparing an AAA game like Gears of War to worthless launch titles is pointlessly stupid.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go compare the graphics of Final Fantasy XII to Katamari Damacy.

I am not interested in football, riced up cars, virtual mammaries or Yet Another First Person Shooter, and I thought the 360 had a rather poor launch lineup. To this date the only games I know of I'd like to play on it are GoW, Viva Pinata, some PC ports and Live Arcade games (Geometry Wars, etc. Siedler der Catan coming out on Live Arcade soonish). How long did GoW and Viva Pinata take to come out?

In contrast the PS3 will already have a "must-play" title in Virtua Fighter 5 in February, well before European launch. The most interesting PC game ports that the 360 has, FEAR and Oblivion, are also out in Feb. Gran Turismo HD is already out as free download. More interesting stuff is out later this year with unannounced dates. The common theme seems to be that the titles will be released "when they're done" and usually that's when the real gems and groundbreaking games are created - witness Half-Life, Starcraft, Max Payne, etc. I thought the PS3 would have difficulty in coming up with games but this doesn't seem to be the case. Judging from the projected releases, in summer the PS3 game selection has the 360 equaled, and before Xmas it has the 360 surpassed. Again, maybe it won't have every version of Madden released for the 360, but it will have the good stuff.

Don't take this as fanboy talk. I'd love to have every console. For now I'm buying none due to prices, and because I want my console to run JPN and US games, and because I want to run a fully functional general video player. (Running Linux on PS3 would allow that but there are downsides.) There are no proper modchips for anything out yet, just some chips for the 360 which let you run backup and pirated discs, neither of which I'm interested in.

I'll tell you what it is. It's the aforementioned 15 y/o fanboys, but not just them. It's the "alternative" generation x/y crowd as well. You know, the 20 somethings that get excited over things like the Honda Element. These folks decided the Wii was their console, because really they're just a bunch of former Zelda and Super Mario 2 nerds that like the name "Wii" and it's "revolutionary" controller. Oh, and you can play Zelda on it! \

The sales don't bear anything out. That's patently false. Also, everyone knew that it wasn't launching with a full slate of titles. No one was surprised that a few of the games sucked.

With each post your fanboy stance becomes more and more startlingly obvious.

Some people bash the PS3 simply because they think it was a poorly researched product, and doesn't give the majority of consumers what they want (well, need) in a console. Instead, some feel, the console tries to be too multi-functional and in the process fails on delivering on its most basic feature - gaming entertainment.

Although, you didn't respond to my other two posts so I don't know why I'm posting this. You use derrogitory terms to belittle opposition ("alternative", "15 y.o. fanboys", "Super Mario 2 nerds") instead of supporting your arguments with facts and reference sources. The irony of you insulting others based upon their supposed bias is almost over-inundating.

The PS3 is missing features, and somehow doesn't give consumers what they need?

That news to me.

Besides, I always thought it was the Wii that lacked graphical prowess and the Xbox that lacked a reasonable storage medium to take advantage of next generation games :/

That was poorly worded, my bad. I meant to say that it had features many people don't need in a console.

Well, the PS3 was clearly the most well researched product of the whole lot. If there's a problem, it's that -- as you can glean from any of Carniphage's posts -- it's ahead of its time. And you pay for it. In addition, SDW is an abrasive character, just expect this. (he's from Philly, I think).

Getting more than you need is not a problem for any reasonable person. Now it can result in too high a price and/or too complicated operation. Then those are the console's weaknesses - not the fact it is highly capable.

Again then, I apologize for my rather convoluted wording.

I mean the price result.

You can't compare games that have had a longer time in development to the rushed crap of the launch window (should've just said this earlier)

Sebastian

A necessary clarification.

BTW, I said "reasonable person" because a number of unreasonable people actually find it to be a problem that there are features they don't need. They think it's a waste - even if competing product, which only has the features they need, is more expensive and/or worse quality. You might not believe it unless you've seen one of these folks, but it's true. It's very funny to watch them backwards rationalize getting the "not wasteful" product in such a case.

I don't understand these folks any more than the ones who think that if another person's state is improved, they become worse off.

I think that is true. Launch titles are usually just graphics demos.
But of course the second generation of PS3 games will be up against the third generation of 360 games. Will things look better for the PS3 then?

I guess the people who strongly think that the PS3 is a better choice, (because it is a "superior hardware") look forward to the day when it's intrinsic betterness will emerge. But that's a bizarre thing to ask consumers.

Would you buy a car because "at some time in the future" it will be cooler and faster? Nope you are going to wait. And this is exactly what we are seeing in the market. People are waiting for good games. Or instead of waiting, will go buy a 360 (xenon) or zephyr instead.

Oblivion was going to be a launch title on the PS3. So we should have been able to compare the same game on the two platforms. Now that would have been really interesting. But Oblivion did not happen - I wonder why that was?

C.

First, I didn't delibrately ignore any posts, so if you would point out what I failed to respond to, I'll do my best.

Secondly, I think pronouncing the PS3 a failure or even saying it fails in certain areas is exceptionally premature. How can you say it fails at being a gaming console when we know full well we haven't yet seen the big titles? We know they're coming. By Christmas 2007, it will look much different.

I also don't think you can make the claim that Sony failed to do research. In fact, it can be said that maybe they listened to their customers too much. They listened on wireless controllers, Blu-Ray, wirless networking, a big HDD, HDMI, etc. Their base of customers demanded these features.

Third, I'm no fanboy. I do own a PS3, but I understand why others might choose differently. For me I feel it's the right choice. I simply fail to understand why there is so much negative hype about it. It seems disingenuous, and in the case of the game availability, totally unfair.

Last, I'm not attacking anyone personally or being "derogatory." However, I am stating IMO where some of this criticism is coming from...from a certain demographic, if you will. I have every right to use sarcasm and to think what I do about those who are all hopped up about the Wii and 360 (mostly the Wii). I've seen it before with other products. That said, I'm certainly going to call a stupid and unsupported statement "stupid and unsupported." There is plenty of that flying around here. When someone says something like "The PS3 is a failure," and I'm going to nail him for a variety of reasons. Sorry if you don't like it.

For anyone interested in the finer points of the PS3, this may be a good read.

IBM doc on developing with Linux on the PS3

The Cell is a clever programmer's wet dream. The more I read about Cell and the PS3, the more convinced I am that programmers who gripe about Cell's nonconventional architecture are programmers with third-string brains.

I'm sure I've just offended some folks, but that's life.

You are offensive - but it's OK - because you are wrong.
Real life is business. Real life is making money. And that means shipping entertaining game products in a controlled & profitable way.

The cell processor is a number cruncher. A great number cruncher. Just as the VU units in the PS2 were. But the PS2 was a bad architecture for games programming. And the PS3 is a bad architecture for games programming.

If you knew *anything at all* about games programming you would get why giant math chips do not equate to games consoles.

You are going to retort that "if only these lazy stuck-in-the-past games people would see the light, they'd be able to make this baby fly".

It's horsecrap.

To deliver a triple-A game, to a deadline, with a budget, and team of affordable progammers - you don't need voodoo hardware. If you look at the pinnacles of game development, you see work based on long-standing reliable engine code. Sometimes with 5 or more years of history. Half-Life 2, Unreal 3 engine. Even Renderware.

Effective, profitable games development means exploiting your existing code-base. It means relying on spending a finite budget on stuff that people enjoy. Gears of War cost less than $10M because it was built on existing technology.

If the only way to exploit the PS3, in a way that shows it's true power, is to start again from scratch, and build new engines. Then it's a shit hardware. Why? because every game will be over-budget and late. No games publisher is going to fund a project where the first part of the production-plan is "write a new engine".

Clever! How's that working out for you?

C.

Its no wonder real-life sucks if its only about business and money. I wouldn't consider that real-life. Dull-life perhaps. Life should be a reflection of art and pushing the boundaries, which the PS3 does, and it requires programmers to push their boundaries. It will take a few years, but when game engines are created by "Artists" for the PS3, rather than the Xbox codemonkeys, we'll see things that just aren't possible anywhere else.

incase you hadn't noticed, the world reached a barrier in clockspeed and decided to go multicore. If it is not possible to multithread apps or games, then computer development has come to a grinding halt, because clockspeed is not advancing much. We know Valve have a 4 core game engine in the works, we know Crytek have a multicore engine in the works, and I bet ID have a multicore engine, though Carmack seems to be an overrated whiner. In a couple of years, these engines will be primetime, and all the whinging now is just devs who are either not at the top of their game, or solely in it to make money. Well the money is going to go to those who embrace the new paradigm, not those who stubbornly fight against it, because like it or not, that is the future.

Do keep up. The 360 *is* multicore. Multicore is good. Multicore is the future.

But the cut-down Cell in the PS3 is not. It has just one general purpose processor and then a bunch of high-performance math processors. You can't just stick a compiler onto a bit of code and make it work on the Cell. - You have to tease it apart and hand-re-code it with nasty non-branching assembly language. You know - like in the 50s.

Powerful? - yes. Commercially attractive? - not so much.

Sony screwed up. This stuff happens. Kuturagi resigned, Stringer's drafting his letter. They are already saying the PS4 will be better. Sony themselves are in freefall: Read this:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22334
But it's art right?

C.

Carniphage:


So we should pretty much just ignore everything else you say after this. It was a such a bad architecture that it's the best selling console in history. You can't see the forest through the silicon.

I thought the hard part is getting your big computation tasks spread into units that fit the 256kb memory envelope of the "extra" cores. There's nothing about this that requires assembly as such. Do you actually need to use asm more on the PS3 for some reason?

You say that all PS3 games will be late due to the need to build a new engine. But Unreal Engine's licensing has been going on for a long time and there are probably others. The middleware guys are scrambling to get their product on the PS3, including one company I used to work at. Nothing says you have to roll your own, and increasingly people don't.

Just wondering. I'd need to know a PS3 developer personally or be one to be able to *know* what's what. Certainly there's been a lot of FUD about this.

The commercial success of the PS2 is utterly unquestionable. But the engineering of the machine is well-documented disaster.

It's success is down to two things.
1) The brilliance of the Sony marketing machine. Securing the best titles for their platform. -
and
2) The ineptitude of Sega and Microsoft in coming up with a credible alternative.

Yes you *can* use C instead of assembler on the SPEs. You can compile code for the SPE as long as the code and the data fit inside the SPE's own memory. But if you look at optimal SPE C-code -it looks a lot more like assembler than C.

So if you are a developer or a middleware company - say Valve or Unreal, what you can't do is take your exising taken-ten-years-to-develop codebase - and quickly refactor it to run on this architecture.

C.