I will admit that the PS3 Cell design is horrible, but considering that its it first year and Sony is touting this console for a 10 year life-span. I think developers will get use to the Cell more as the years go on.

I can see most people here have absolutely no idea about programming from the "devs are lazy" angle that seems to be coming across in this thread.

The simple truth is, the PS3 will never be as good as the Xbox360 at AI. The PS3 is designed for "Embarrassingly parallel" tasks. The baby of the PS3 is it's SPE's, each one of them can be given a small task, do some heavy number crunching on it, and spit out an answer. This is perfect for tasks such as graphics processing and physics for example. Graphics processing is one of the most paralellisable tasks that can be done on a computer, the typical GPU has multiple graphics pipelines each with seven or eight different steps (projecting, face culling, clipping, rasterisation, etc) that can all be done simultaneously. Physics is based on a whole lot of objects moving around each other with predetermined laws.

The simple truth is AI is a completely different beast. AI involves branching, testing different conditions. The vector processors of the Cell are completely unsuited to decisions, they're designed to perform calculations. As well as this, AI cannot be broken down into smaller chunks that can be run simultaneously, each decision depends on the result of the previous one. The simple result is that the AI has to be run on the PPE, which is basically similar to one of the cores of the Xbox360, but of course it needs to take up a lot of time with other things, such as making sure all the SPEs are doing the right thing.

Unfortunately, this is a trade-off that is very well known in Computer Science, You can make something more specialised, and you get better performance for one thing, ut less performance in other things. The Cell is a highly specialised processor (obviously not to the standard of a GPU, but still specialised) which gives it advantages in some areas (Physics, Graphics) but disadvantages in others (AI)

That's just the way of the world. The Cell is a processor like any other, it has its limits, its strengths and its weaknesses. No amount of development effort will make the PS3 etter suited for AI than the Xbox360.

When Sony says "10 year lifespan" they mean it about as much as they mean "4d graphics" or "playing the PS2 feels the same as jacking into the Matrix".

Commercially succesful consoles have a long lifespan. This is not a specific feature of the Playstations, but rather an effect of the first two being so succesful. The scenario of the PS3 staying as a viable platform for games occurs in the same universe as it selling over 100 million copies. Sony still claim both are happening, but we know better by now.

endimion: Oh right, it's not like Ubisoft is an internal studio of Microsoft's. It would be different if it was Bungie saying the 360 is superior, or Naughty Dog praising the PS3, but I suppose Ubi is fairly neutral on this.

Re all the developers are lazy statements:

As a developer (not a games one although I have dabbled) this is a stupid and blanket statement to make. Making games is about making money. What people are describing as putting the effort in to tap the power of the cell architecture is not a question of laziness. This implies that there are no extra costs to tapping this power and it is just a question of being bothered, which is ridiculous. Time is money and the more time they spend tapping the power of the cell, the greater the development costs and the less money they make. Further more the more tricky a console is to program for the harder it is to estimate end dates. This is the nature of the business and thus it is valid to complain that a console is hard to program for, especially when they can compare it directly to the other consoles of the generation.

It is completely nonsensical to say the developers are lazy without any evidence. Games developers are under a lot of pressure and do some serious overtime. Lazy is not a word that springs to mind.

Re the Cell architecture:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/06/13/is-the-ps3-really-harder-to-develop-for/

This is an article on the playstation blog which links an article that is written by an in house Sony developer. Its of questionably bias but anyway, it has a good quote that seems to be repeated by Sony supporters in one form or another:

This is an interesting question and hidden within the question is an enormously complex subject! If the game starts life on PS3, then man-hours per feature or costs related to asset production are comparable with industry norms. For that, you can include Xbox 360 and high-end PC games, and exclude PS2 and Wii. However, since PS3’s Cell processor allows MORE features - better physics, more complex graphical processing, lighting or sound, etc. — there is inevitably going to be more cost in supporting those extra features. It’s not that PS3 is harder to write for, it’s just that you can do more with it.

Whilst it is true that utilizing more cores (CPUs) means more work for the developers but greater potential there is so much more to the architecture than just the number of cores. It is possible that Sony (or Nintendo or Microsoft) have made bad calls which are hurting the developers or just plain limiting. On top of this there are the developer tools, the documentation, the support Sony offer, debugging and analysis tools, etc. I am not saying that the PS3 sucks in all these, just saying that it is entirely possible that they are sub-par and none are related to potential.

So please don't just say the developers are lazy and the PS3 is just really powerful unless you have anything to base it on. It is entirely possible the PS3 is needlessly hard and thus costly to develop for and also possible that it is inferior to the Xbox 360 in some ways.

Anyway, I find it interesting that a Ubisoft developer has made this comment. A huge publisher like Ubisoft is not going to casually allow a developer to say something like this. I do believe it is true, however I think they have allowed it to be said as it helps their interests. Ubisoft has really sided with Nintendo this generation. I think they are saying this to try and hurt the PS3 and cause damage to EA who have only recently shifted focus.

Maybe because the PS3 is a supercomputer and ordinary game programmers cannot understand it... :)

Seriously, as I long time programmer, the first time I saw the proposed PS3 architecture I knew it would be a complete mess to deal with. That level of parallel processing seems beautiful at first glance. You start to sum up the processing power of each SPU and wow, that thing is really a processing powerhorse.... but just on paper. In the real world things aren’t so simple.
BTW, it is easy for someone that has never written a single line of code in his/her life to call someone else lazy.
Oh, and AI is mathematic… sure... gosh…

@ omgwtfbbq and thermal7

Your post makes too much sense and are loaded with too many facts... therefore it will be ignored by all those fanboys who believe developers are too lazy and that the Cell is the next coming of Christ.

Next time make sure you start your post with "PS3 Ruxxors!!" (that will get their attention), then hit them with the facts! But make it quick, before they realize what they're reading are facts and totally contradicts their "Lala" land.

Other then that great post, good reads!

Edit: Same thing to Opcode.. start with "PS3 Ruxxors!!" then hit them with the facts!

Or maybe he meant 'They made AI for the 360 and couldn't be bothered to alter it for significantly different hardware, having failed to plan for that eventuality.'

Today's lesson:  not putting words in people's mouths.   

To bad they are gonna have to live with it. Current tendency of adding generic cores to cpus are doomed, assymetrical cpus will be standard soon. Expect the first Intel assymetric cpus by 2010 and probably from AMD too if they don't follow that even worst GPGPUs modular processor thing.

 Forget that, today's lesson seems to be;

Speaking out of ignorance whilst having no background or true knowledge of the subject truly is bliss.

I think it's safe to say that a fan-boy's opinion of "OMG how dare you question the Cell" cannot be taken seriously. 

I don't get some of you people. You will listen to a developer only has experience on one console before you listen to a developer that has made games for all. I think their opinion would count for a little more. Then again it could just be because it goes against your own beliefs.