Bodhesatva said: Legend11 said: Why didn't Sony just use a regular cpu like everyone else instead of trying to solve a problem that never existed? I can see how some people here might blame the software developers or claim they're lazy or that we just have to wait until "next year" but the fact remains that had Sony just built the thing PS3 from a game programmer's perspective instead of an engineering one we likely wouldn't be seeing all these delays, mediocre performance, and additional costs being associated with a lot of PS3 software.  Agreed.

ooohhhh bods, you're in my sights...... what, was the EE trying to solve a problem that never existed or was it forward thinking??? revolution in chip design is NEVER well received, at 1st... development will exponentially overcome once understanding is caught up. or is everyone saying that IBM is a loser, POS, that using available tech can't seem to turn a f&cking profit, oh wait that's MS... can't make f&cking use of available tech without it burning to nothing. sorry legend11, nothing personal, but the 360 was ill conceived and rushed. this has nothing to do with games... i have a close personal friend that is on 360 number 4. shit bods, i read a couple more and it's clear. this topic just pissed in my cheerios.... just tired of it!

vizunary said: Bodhesatva said: Legend11 said: Why didn't Sony just use a regular cpu like everyone else instead of trying to solve a problem that never existed? I can see how some people here might blame the software developers or claim they're lazy or that we just have to wait until "next year" but the fact remains that had Sony just built the thing PS3 from a game programmer's perspective instead of an engineering one we likely wouldn't be seeing all these delays, mediocre performance, and additional costs being associated with a lot of PS3 software.  Agreed.   ooohhhh bods, you're in my sights...... what, was the EE trying to solve a problem that never existed or was it forward thinking??? revolution in chip design is NEVER well received, at 1st... development will exponentially overcome once understanding is caught up. or is everyone saying that IBM is a loser, POS, that using available tech can't seem to turn a f&cking profit, oh wait that's MS... can't make f&cking use of available tech without it burning to nothing. sorry legend11, nothing personal, but the 360 was ill conceived and rushed. this has nothing to do with games... i have a close personal friend that is on 360 number 4. shit bods, i read a couple more and it's clear. this topic just pissed in my cheerios.... just tired of it!

Mmmm, Mmmm Cheerios.

vizunary said: Bodhesatva said: Legend11 said: Why didn't Sony just use a regular cpu like everyone else instead of trying to solve a problem that never existed? I can see how some people here might blame the software developers or claim they're lazy or that we just have to wait until "next year" but the fact remains that had Sony just built the thing PS3 from a game programmer's perspective instead of an engineering one we likely wouldn't be seeing all these delays, mediocre performance, and additional costs being associated with a lot of PS3 software. Agreed.   ooohhhh bods, you're in my sights...... what, was the EE trying to solve a problem that never existed or was it forward thinking??? revolution in chip design is NEVER well received, at 1st... development will exponentially overcome once understanding is caught up. or is everyone saying that IBM is a loser, POS, that using available tech can't seem to turn a f&cking profit, oh wait that's MS... can't make f&cking use of available tech without it burning to nothing. sorry legend11, nothing personal, but the 360 was ill conceived and rushed. this has nothing to do with games... i have a close personal friend that is on 360 number 4. shit bods, i read a couple more and it's clear. this topic just pissed in my cheerios.... just tired of it!

Vizunary, I'm really sorry to have upset you. Really, this is a response to those who say "Developers are just lazy!" You have to recognize that this is the other side of the coin. There are two statements:

1) Developers are not putting in every ounce of effort to learn the unfamiliar new PS3 hardware.
2) Sony made a unnecessarily unusual hardware design.

Both of those statements are true. Hopefully we can agree to this: we often see PS3-haters constantly yelling statement 2, while the PS3-fanboys often constantly yell statement 1. They're both true, and if someone has to be "blamed" for the developmental setbacks the PS3 has seen, it is to some degree everyone involved -- not just Sony, not just the developers, but everyone. 

That's why I agreed with Legend, because I felt that was the point he was making. Does that seem unfair?  

NorthStar said: I don't get it this guy is saying that Ubisoft can't make the AI better on the PS3 because the developers can't figure out how to program indipendently on the Cell Processors. of course if they are making individual Cells preform a vast multitude of tasks instead of more cell specific programing the AI will suffer. it just seems that Ubisoft could just be honest and say to date they still have not been able to completly tap into the potential of the Cell . It is very new technology it will be Hard too develop for but as soon as they "get it" we will see a definitive shift in thier attitude. This would also save face for Ubisoft because any game that comes out that really utilizes the cell Ubisoft will have to ansewer why they couldn't figure it out. EA takes a good aproach to PS3 development they admit they have a hard time and Now Sony is going to work closely with them to get EA running at 60fps. EA couldn't do it but Sony has a basketball game running at 60fps.

 

I agree , they hide there lack of knowledge/talent with this stetement . It would be nicer if they say : ,, well its pretty damn hard and we dont want to loose more money , especially because our 2$ Wii ports are well sold "

Bodhesatva said: vizunary said: Bodhesatva said: Legend11 said: Why didn't Sony just use a regular cpu like everyone else instead of trying to solve a problem that never existed? I can see how some people here might blame the software developers or claim they're lazy or that we just have to wait until "next year" but the fact remains that had Sony just built the thing PS3 from a game programmer's perspective instead of an engineering one we likely wouldn't be seeing all these delays, mediocre performance, and additional costs being associated with a lot of PS3 software. Agreed.   ooohhhh bods, you're in my sights...... what, was the EE trying to solve a problem that never existed or was it forward thinking??? revolution in chip design is NEVER well received, at 1st... development will exponentially overcome once understanding is caught up. or is everyone saying that IBM is a loser, POS, that using available tech can't seem to turn a f&cking profit, oh wait that's MS... can't make f&cking use of available tech without it burning to nothing. sorry legend11, nothing personal, but the 360 was ill conceived and rushed. this has nothing to do with games... i have a close personal friend that is on 360 number 4. shit bods, i read a couple more and it's clear. this topic just pissed in my cheerios.... just tired of it! Vizunary, I'm really sorry to have upset you. Really, this is a response to those who say "Developers are just lazy!" You have to recognize that this is the other side of the coin. There are two statements: 1) Developers are not putting in every ounce of effort to learn the unfamiliar new PS3 hardware. 2) Sony made a unnecessarily unusual hardware design. Both of those statements are true. Hopefully we can agree to this: we often see PS3-haters constantly yelling statement 2, while the PS3-fanboys often constantly yell statement 1. They're both true, and if someone has to be "blamed" for the developmental setbacks the PS3 has seen, it is to some degree everyone involved -- not just Sony, not just the developers, but everyone.  That's why I agreed with Legend, because I felt that was the point he was making. Does that seem unfair? Â

like my last line, i get it... what many fail to realise is that the cell is not just Sony's baby, it's ibm, sony, and toshiba(now that's funny) love child, and has many more uses. so compromises were made, guaranteed. but, just like the EE(which had the EXACT same criticisms) the Cell has the potential to last. the PS2 is still a competitor after SEVEN years????????? has never happened b4.

@hunter alien.............. don't be an ass

double

vizunary said: Bodhesatva said: vizunary said: Bodhesatva said: Legend11 said: Why didn't Sony just use a regular cpu like everyone else instead of trying to solve a problem that never existed? I can see how some people here might blame the software developers or claim they're lazy or that we just have to wait until "next year" but the fact remains that had Sony just built the thing PS3 from a game programmer's perspective instead of an engineering one we likely wouldn't be seeing all these delays, mediocre performance, and additional costs being associated with a lot of PS3 software. Agreed.   ooohhhh bods, you're in my sights...... what, was the EE trying to solve a problem that never existed or was it forward thinking??? revolution in chip design is NEVER well received, at 1st... development will exponentially overcome once understanding is caught up. or is everyone saying that IBM is a loser, POS, that using available tech can't seem to turn a f&cking profit, oh wait that's MS... can't make f&cking use of available tech without it burning to nothing. sorry legend11, nothing personal, but the 360 was ill conceived and rushed. this has nothing to do with games... i have a close personal friend that is on 360 number 4. shit bods, i read a couple more and it's clear. this topic just pissed in my cheerios.... just tired of it! Vizunary, I'm really sorry to have upset you. Really, this is a response to those who say "Developers are just lazy!" You have to recognize that this is the other side of the coin. There are two statements: 1) Developers are not putting in every ounce of effort to learn the unfamiliar new PS3 hardware. 2) Sony made a unnecessarily unusual hardware design. Both of those statements are true. Hopefully we can agree to this: we often see PS3-haters constantly yelling statement 2, while the PS3-fanboys often constantly yell statement 1. They're both true, and if someone has to be "blamed" for the developmental setbacks the PS3 has seen, it is to some degree everyone involved -- not just Sony, not just the developers, but everyone. That's why I agreed with Legend, because I felt that was the point he was making. Does that seem unfair?   like my last line, i get it... what many fail to realise is that the cell is not just Sony's baby, it's ibm, sony, and toshiba(now that's funny) love child, and has many more uses. so compromises were made, guaranteed. but, just like the EE(which had the EXACT same criticisms) the Cell has the potential to last. the PS2 is still a competitor after SEVEN years????????? has never happened b4.

That's fine! I'm really not arguing that, Viz. Long term, the Cell will almost certainly not be an issue for Sony (in fact, id's new Tech5 engine seems like a really strong positive step for the Cell), but right now, there have been issues, and people are looking to blame someone right now. You point out the advantages to the Cell; again, I agree with them. But there are disadvantages too, and trumpeting the strengths while not acknowledging the weaknesses seems unfair.

Here's a simple way to explain what I mean. Sony fans ask: "Why can't developers stop being lazy and work with the Cell?" Couldn't I just as easily ask: "Why couldn't Sony/IBM/Toshiba have been less lazy and developed a processor as powerful as the Cell without the oblique architecture? Why not take the time to develop an extremely powerful processor that also is easy to program for?" Developers can put in the extra work to program for the Cell, but Sony also could have put in the extra effort to make the Cell powerful but simpler. 

Remember that post you made about the Wii's software support, where you pointed out that if the Wii is to be top dog this generation, then adopters need to accept that the system will see a disproportionate amount of crap? I agreed with that, because you're absolutely right: most strengths have their downsides, and those downsides should be acknowledged. I think that's the sort of situation we're looking at here with the Cell.  

 

 

yeah well the EE still sucks ass compare to the Hitachi SH4 of DC..... Success is not a proof of quality..... EE was a pain in the ass too.... and in many way still is compare to the HW before (DC) and the one after (XB).... Cell the same it's piece of shit when it comes to gaming dev confort..... it's a great processor and hope to see it in my TV someday or in some super computer..... just not that great for a home console.....

@windbane
ok i'll say it again just for you.... having a better AI doesn't make it more complex.... the problem with an AI like on conviction is the number of individual you have to handle with different behavior.... especial if they calculate in advance their next action for a lot of different character and totally randomly.... so a poor crowd AI could be more complex than great AI for let say 15 enemies on screen.... (i kept it simple)

@Bod
no it's not a little bit of both.... a dev is not suppose to care about the hardware... it's not his problem..... it's like me when I work for a poster advertising if I sell a picture not at the right format i'm fucked he doesn't care if the 100 000 print he just did are horrible he is paid anyway..... it's up to sony to make sure their hardware will be easily handled by the dev not up to the dev to make the effort....
So even if they are lazy like a sloth.... it's still Sony's fault for not making it easy.... end of the discussion.....Sony is responsible for its HW and that's it

@Sporticus
name me any dev studio that develops that many saga and/or games at that pace of release with a better quality than Ubisoft... ??? just name me one ??? and with their title selling millions behind.... and most of the time multi platform.... just name one company other than EA who does the same (and achieve the same end result ???)

Parokki said: I didn't believe it when the opposite was claimed, and I don't believe this now. Developers always make it sound like their game couldn't be made on the other systems, so people will buy the system they're developing for, and thus increase the amount of potential buyers. Oldest trick in the book, especially for consoles that are competing for the biggest horsepowers. That being said, a serious amount of developers complaining about how hard the Cell is to program for doesn't just mean the developers are lazy. Probably that too, but it also gives serious cause to suspect the Cell is just plain badly designed. That's one of the challenges in making a console, making sure it's easy to use and provide proper tools for your developers. Of course I suppose it also means the games of the really awesome developers that can afford to take their time and have loads of talented staff will be even more awesome in comparison. =P

 Oh I forgot you :P

what would be  the point of doing that it's not like they have stocks at MS or  Sony.... they don't care on which system it's sold.... hell they don't even care if the game sale... the Dev studios do the product manager does.... but the Dev in his office doesn't really give a damn.... he is in his office getting payed anyway just to finish the game in time for release on what ever platform he was told to do it....