I see now, thanks for the detailed answer!!
slowmo said:
The short answer is yes.
Long answer is quite complex and it'll end up with pages of off topic talk but I'll try for you. The 360 architecture design is still very similar to that of a PC which makes development quite simple. The PS3 architecture is different because a large amount of its power is contained within the Cell and not the GPU. Most game engines are built with the PC style balanced architecture in mind so they put the graphics load on the GPU and all other threads such as AI, physics, etc are handled by the CPU. The problem with this method is on the PS3 you end up with a CPU that isn't being taxed at all and a GPU that is getting bogged down because it cannot process as fast as the 360 or PC versions. This ends up with sacrifices being made usually to get the PS3 version "good enough" (as happened to the 360 version of FFXIII). Instead of rewriting game engines to offset graphical work to the SPE's (very costly), most developers save their budgets and compromise the quality of the PS3 version. Easy ways to increase performance are to drop resolution, reduce texture quality (saves memory bandwidth), reduce AA quality (or disbale it), remove some effects. As I said its quite a complex answer to such a simple question and I could probably write pages upon the subject. If you look at the PS3 exclusives we know the hardware is at least as good, probably more powerful than the 360 as a whole. If we look at multiplatform games then in general the 360 looks the stronger machine. Having the 360 as lead platform usually ends up with the 360 looking noticably better, when the PS3 is lead they look identical or the PS3 marginally better (FFXIII is the big exception here). I don't like the term lazy devs people use on here as it doesn't take into consideration why developers do not have the tools to improve the PS3 developments. |
Decent summary there. Also, 360 having a more rounded SDK earlier on (tied to the reasons you gave) also gave the first few waves of titles an advantage on 360 too.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
| Reasonable said: I don't think the PS2 would have held off the 360 quite that well - although it would have slowed sales more than PS3, I agree with that. 360 was destined I think to get PC orientated online titles and would have nonetheless got strong sales in US/UK in line with that. My view with hindsight is that Sony made 2 mistakes: 1 - they wrote of Nintendo (so did MS too I'm sure) and didn't consider them or their new console direction a threat 2 - they overexagerated the threat for the 360 and focused on matching it for specifications, online, etc. seeing MS as their real foe this gen These led to 3 mistakes pertaining to their direction with the PS3, particularly at launch: 1 - they pushed in too much tech making the price far too high at launch (I know the price was actually good for what you got, but what you got was more than most people wanted then) 2 - they overly focused on mature titles and new IP to so so instead of getting some core franchises out early 3 - they felt sure they could use the success of PS3 to boost BR and never thought BR would in fact, for the first 2 years, actually be an anchor on the console due to the high cost it added to the console I'd also say that they seriously over-committed to R&D around the Cell and the PS3 architecture in terms of real world benefits. |
Actually their problems were more fundamental than that. There was no winning solution for this generation because Sony never really knew how to maintain their position. Hindsight is golden with regards to simple simulations because if you change one factor then the other factors fall in line, say, had you crossed the street 2 seconds before you wouldn't have broken your leg. With more complicated solutions its impossible to say that had they done X differently to factor in Y that a new factor Z would not have bitten them in the butt even more.
My suspicion is that Sony were clueless as to how to maintain a console business. They thought they knew, but success only reinforced the problematic beliefs they had and they only way they would have learnt from these mistakes is to get a bloody nose. What they know now that the Wii etc has kicked them onto their butt is a different story from what they knew back in 2004. The fundamental combination of arrogance and ignorance would not have changed without Sony first experiencing defeat. This horse cannot come before the cart.
Btw they spent several billion dollars on the Cell and their fabrication facilities to get them up to snuff before selling them for a pittance to Toshiba. They Cell has definately not been good to them.
Tease.
While I agree with the OP. I have one question about this thread:
Why blu ray would lost? Isn't it very superior to HD-DVD? The PS3 was THAT necessary? Was the 360 HD-DVD add on important in the format war?
Whoops, that's more than one question.
I still believe that even without the PS3, blu ray would succeed. It's not like HD-DVD had it's own PS3 to compete with it.
because it's all about market share and "winning", f**king pathetic gamers these days *faceplam*
| andremop said: While I agree with the OP. I have one question about this thread: Why blu ray would lost? Isn't it very superior to HD-DVD? The PS3 was THAT necessary? Was the 360 HD-DVD add on important in the format war? Whoops, that's more than one question. I still believe that even without the PS3, blu ray would succeed. It's not like HD-DVD had it's own PS3 to compete with it. |
Bluray was superior in capacity, HD-DVD had better quality codecs (this advantage didn't last long though), was region free (good for consumers), cheaper to manufacture actual disks, you could also create the combo disk that has both DVD and HD-DVD on the same disk which would have allowed people to buy with a view to upgrading at a later date. All that being said, if the PS3 didn't have Bluray, I doubt the 360 would have had the HD-DVD add on either. Having Bluray in the PS3 though made it possible to kill off HD-DVD, that along with the fact Toshiba didn't have the money Sony had to fling at movie execs. In that respect I agree that in hindsight Bluray was always going to win because Sony decided they were going to win the format war no matter what it cost them this time.
slowmo said:
The short answer is yes.
Long answer is quite complex and it'll end up with pages of off topic talk but I'll try for you. The 360 architecture design is still very similar to that of a PC which makes development quite simple. The PS3 architecture is different because a large amount of its power is contained within the Cell and not the GPU. Most game engines are built with the PC style balanced architecture in mind so they put the graphics load on the GPU and all other threads such as AI, physics, etc are handled by the CPU. The problem with this method is on the PS3 you end up with a CPU that isn't being taxed at all and a GPU that is getting bogged down because it cannot process as fast as the 360 or PC versions. This ends up with sacrifices being made usually to get the PS3 version "good enough" (as happened to the 360 version of FFXIII). Instead of rewriting game engines to offset graphical work to the SPE's (very costly), most developers save their budgets and compromise the quality of the PS3 version. Easy ways to increase performance are to drop resolution, reduce texture quality (saves memory bandwidth), reduce AA quality (or disbale it), remove some effects. As I said its quite a complex answer to such a simple question and I could probably write pages upon the subject. If you look at the PS3 exclusives we know the hardware is at least as good, probably more powerful than the 360 as a whole. If we look at multiplatform games then in general the 360 looks the stronger machine. Having the 360 as lead platform usually ends up with the 360 looking noticably better, when the PS3 is lead they look identical or the PS3 marginally better (FFXIII is the big exception here). I don't like the term lazy devs people use on here as it doesn't take into consideration why developers do not have the tools to improve the PS3 developments. |
they don't have the tools because they're lazy, look at Crytech approach to the ps3 and Valve's you'll see what I mean. however everything else was spot on.
If Sony would have sticked with PS2 I would have bought an Xbox 360.. I need graphics and online capabilities..
Currently playing: MAG, Heavy Rain, Infamous
Getting Plat trophies for: Heavy Rain, Infamous, RE5, Burnout and GOW collection once I get it.
hollywood85 said:
they don't have the tools because they're lazy, look at Crytech approach to the ps3 and Valve's you'll see what I mean. however everything else was spot on. |
Actually they didn't have the tools because as Reasonable mentioned earlier, Sony's SDK was pretty crap in coimparison to Microsoft's for about 18 months. I'm pretty sure Valve have not made a game for the PS3 yet, that being said Crytech haven't released one yet either so there is no comment to be made until we have hard evidence. Sony have certainly started helping devs more now though and the evidence is there for all to see in the fact most multiplats now are near enough identical.
I thought HD-DVD was a response to Blu-Ray.
As for the central topic of this thread......it actually makes perfect sense.
However, I think the hardware 'limitations' would've eventually made the 3rd parties move on to 360 only.
Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. " thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
