Being a gamer and playing everything out there, Blu-ray with the cell processor is the best combo, best video, and sound. Remember the files on PS3 are hugh, downloads etc, because of blu ray format, so the fact its as fast as it is , is amazing. Its reading 4-6 x more data then 360, 360 works on dvd, they only have 7 or 8 gigs, vs 50-80 gigs on blu ray disc. Hugh difference, espesially when you reading or downloading that much data from a disc, PS3 is a amazing machine, 299.99 , that is really a great price for everything you get.

Sorcery said: Both have been beneficial to the PS3, but only for less than a handful of games, unfortunately. We know from Uncharted 2, MGS4, GT5, and FFXIII that Blu-Ray is beneficial, but many developers don't get the budget to stuff a game with a ton of different textures.

I think you mention some key top titles there, I don't think a game like for example Bejeweled or Braid would ever need Blu-Ray technology.

Just the top titles, especially large scale epic ones.

But we do know a lot was cut from GTA4 to still fit on 1 DVD (an open world game, not suitable for disc swapping). Thus I hope in the future games like GTA V will be PS3 exclusive and make proper use of both the Cell and Blu-Ray technologies.

A benefit of Bluray isn't its streaming speed in any sense at all MikeB (not at 2x), that is actually FUD like you're accusing others of spreading. If you were to say that Uncharted 2 benefitted from using Bluray by amazing graphics largely due to a huge number of assets they could fit on bluray and indeed excellent audio and cutscences for this same reason too then you might have a point. The streaming speed the PS3 drive is not better than DVD or HDD so is not a benefit, the extra space however is.

The Cell hasn't been a benefit for anything other than a handful of games so far, imo this shows it was a mistake to include such a complex architecture in a games console. The Sega Saturn did the same thing an despite it's amazing power it was just too hard for developers to bother trying to get parity with its rivals. If you want a vote of it was the right call for one percent of games released on the system so far then I'm afraid I cannot agree.

Overall I'd say Bluray is a benefit when the game engine is built to stream and cache properly, the Cell has been a failure that has caused more harm than good (poor ports, ridiculous cost).

Both bluray and the cell processor have proven to be beneficial for developers to create great games. Without those specs we would have never seen the likes of uncharted 2. More developers should look into the playstation 3 and hopefully we would see more quality exclusives and see what amazing things the playstation 3 can do.

MikeB said: Sorcery said: Both have been beneficial to the PS3, but only for less than a handful of games, unfortunately. We know from Uncharted 2, MGS4, GT5, and FFXIII that Blu-Ray is beneficial, but many developers don't get the budget to stuff a game with a ton of different textures. I think you mention some key top titles there, I don't think a game like for example Bejeweled or Braid would ever need Blu-Ray technology. Just the top titles, especially large scale epic ones. But we do know a lot was cut from GTA4 to still fit on 1 DVD (an open world game, not suitable for disc swapping). Thus I hope in the future games like GTA V will be PS3 exclusive and make proper use of both the Cell and Blu-Ray technologies.

It actually bothers me that just about every exclusive game from last generation is multiplatform this generation, since I think several multiplats could've seen massive improvements if they had stayed on the PS3, including GTAIV. However, I definitely understand that the industry is a business, so making multiplatform titles makes much more sense (in theory).

 

 

As an aside, I think the Cell will show its merit in almost every PS3 exclusive from this point onwards.

@ nordland

Which processor would you been thinking of?

The reason the Cell is harder to develop for is:

1) Reduction of manufacturing cost, chip size and power consumption. Thus non-essentials which do however simplify the need of expertise were removed. IMO this is mainly an issue for inefficient non-expert coders and 3rd developers who rely on their legacy game engines.

2) IMO having to deal with 8 processors will always be harder to code for than a dual or quad core system, just like it's harder to utilize thousands of colors in a game vs on a system which can only have 16 colors max, or single tasking system vs multi-tasking system, or a system supporting surround sound vs mono sound, etc. IMO developers which had enough foresight of where technology is moving towards will today not need to worry about obsolete gaming engines (IMO Crytek for example is a company with foresight)

The aim of the Cell was to make a processor with an insane amount of processing power at minimal costs. I think for the long run this approach will prove itself beneficial to the consumer.

nordlead said: Blu-Ray has been beneficial as proven by 7.1 sound, multiple languages, and more. A faster Blu-Ray drive would be even better, but that would have just jacked prices higher during launch. Obviously it's downside of being slower (than needed) has caused devs to duplicate data, or install to HDD, but it's benefits have clearly outweighed the downsides. As for the Cell, I feel it is a wash. They could have made a system just as powerful using a simpler architecture, which might have prevented some of the really sad ports and large number of complaints from developers. So while they have had some technically impressive games with the Cell, it wasn't necessary. Maybe in the future my opinion may change, but who knows.

This is my sentiment, Blue-Ray on the PS3 not only benefited Sony in winning the HD format war but allow for clear and visible benefit to the consumer that can be immediately categorised for both gaming and media viewing. The Cell has yet to provide anything other than a nebulous 'better graphic' coinage.

 

 

We havn't seen any significantly better games on the PS3 than the 360, so they seem to be of little benefit. They havn't helped Sony retain the market share they enjoyed with the PS2, if anything it's been a bit of a disaster  for them. The only saving grace has been the format win over HD-DVD which without Blu-ray on the PS3 they would have surely lost.

MikeB said: @ nordland As for the Cell, I feel it is a wash. They could have made a system just as powerful using a simpler architecture Which processor would you been thinking of? The reason the Cell is harder to develop for is: 1) Reduction of manufacturing cost, chip size and power consumption. Thus non-essentials which do however simplify the need of expertise were removed. IMO this is mainly an issue for inefficient non-expert coders and 3rd developers who rely on their legacy game engines. 2) IMO having to deal with 8 processors will always be harder to code for than a dual or quad core system, just like it's harder to utilize thousands of colors in a game vs on a system which can only have 16 colors max, or single tasking system vs multi-tasking system, or a system supporting surround sound vs mono sound, etc. IMO developers which had enough foresight of where technology is moving towards will today not need to worry about obsolete gaming engines (IMO Crytek for example is a company with foresight) The aim of the Cell was to make a processor with an insane amount of processing power at minimal costs. I think for the long run this approach will prove itself beneficial to the consumer.

well, MikeG, maybe something with similar design style as the X360, only more powerful? I know what makes programming on the Cell hard, as I'm a developer myself, and even venturing into 2 cores is a chore in and of itself compared to 1 core. Right now, the increased difficulty in development has lead to two things. Some crappy ports/multiplatform games, and some really good exclusives. Has the Cell's good exclusives outweighted the other harm it has caused? Are said exclusives really that much better than X360 or PC exclusives? That is up to the end user to decide, which is why I stated I feel it is a wash.

MikeB said: @ nordland As for the Cell, I feel it is a wash. They could have made a system just as powerful using a simpler architecture Which processor would you been thinking of? The reason the Cell is harder to develop for is: 1) Reduction of manufacturing cost, chip size and power consumption. Thus non-essentials which do however simplify the need of expertise were removed. IMO this is mainly an issue for inefficient non-expert coders and 3rd developers who rely on their legacy game engines. 2) IMO having to deal with 8 processors will always be harder to code for than a dual or quad core system, just like it's harder to utilize thousands of colors in a game vs on a system which can only have 16 colors max, or single tasking system vs multi-tasking system, or a system supporting surround sound vs mono sound, etc. IMO developers which had enough foresight of where technology is moving towards will today not need to worry about obsolete gaming engines (IMO Crytek for example is a company with foresight) The aim of the Cell was to make a processor with an insane amount of processing power at minimal costs. I think for the long run this approach will prove itself beneficial to the consumer.

It might or it might not, but the point is that had Sony chosen to go with a more traditional architecture this gen, they would have received a lot more comeptent port from third party and fiasco like the recent Bayonetta would never happen.

Developer like Naughty Dog could produce awesome game with outstanding production value not matter how many processor you put in front of them.

Some cannot.