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.
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.
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! \
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.
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
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.
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 . . ..
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).
That was poorly worded, my bad. I meant to say that it had features many people don't need in a console.
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.
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.
Again then, I apologize for my rather convoluted wording.
I mean the price result.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Iincase 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, .
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:
But the PS2 was a bad architecture for games programming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So now we have gone from "all the game projects will be behind schedule and total disasters" to "middleware companies will have to do some technically demanding work".
But that's exactly what the middleware companies do. They do the hard stuff so others wouldn't have to. In the house I worked at for a short time, they had the best programmers I've met, period. They supported lots of platforms, from the even-more-difficult-to-program PS2 to mobile handsets. Not to mention what the product actually did. One key developer was well on his way to computer science doctorate for the research he did for this. I have no reason to think it's different elsewhere - it's simply the kind of task that attracts coding maniacs. They had no use for anyone who wasn't a skilled coder or just about to become one. (Not gratuituous self-promotion. I worked a different task. )
And if getting the middleware and engine guys going is a problem, it's a problem in the beginning, not at the end. There is lots of stuff for the PS3 already. The PS3 is over that particular hump. Sony licensed Unreal Engine for development last year.
I'm not convinced the devs at run-of-the-mill studios will have to tap into the SKUs a lot beyond what their middleware building blocks and engine will do on their own. Some studios that want to distinguish their game with intensive in-house AI or something else will have their developers figure the technology out. At worst it should perform like the 360, but there is some additional potential there for when someone wants to utilize it. The 360, on the other hand, will be easier (which is not a bad thing) if you want to keep most of the development in-house.
Comments
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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 . . ..
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).
That was poorly worded, my bad. I meant to say that it had features many people don't need in a console.
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.
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.
I have absolutely no idea what point you are making.
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
Again then, I apologize for my rather convoluted wording.
I mean the price result.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iincase 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, .
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.
But the PS2 was a bad architecture for games programming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So now we have gone from "all the game projects will be behind schedule and total disasters" to "middleware companies will have to do some technically demanding work".
But that's exactly what the middleware companies do. They do the hard stuff so others wouldn't have to. In the house I worked at for a short time, they had the best programmers I've met, period. They supported lots of platforms, from the even-more-difficult-to-program PS2 to mobile handsets. Not to mention what the product actually did. One key developer was well on his way to computer science doctorate for the research he did for this. I have no reason to think it's different elsewhere - it's simply the kind of task that attracts coding maniacs. They had no use for anyone who wasn't a skilled coder or just about to become one. (Not gratuituous self-promotion. I worked a different task.
And if getting the middleware and engine guys going is a problem, it's a problem in the beginning, not at the end. There is lots of stuff for the PS3 already. The PS3 is over that particular hump. Sony licensed Unreal Engine for development last year.
I'm not convinced the devs at run-of-the-mill studios will have to tap into the SKUs a lot beyond what their middleware building blocks and engine will do on their own. Some studios that want to distinguish their game with intensive in-house AI or something else will have their developers figure the technology out. At worst it should perform like the 360, but there is some additional potential there for when someone wants to utilize it. The 360, on the other hand, will be easier (which is not a bad thing) if you want to keep most of the development in-house.