Sony's Reasoning for Cutting BC from PS3

[Warlock]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163763


Sony: No BC Will Sell More PS3 Software

The 40GB $399 PlayStation 3 has finally been announced for North America, and no, it doesn't have any backward compatibility. It's a move that appears to lack rationality; after all, how much can Sony really be saving by taking out even software-based backward compatibility? Not much, as it turns out -- and that's not why they removed it.
Speaking with the Wall Street Journal, Sony Computer Entertainment America President Jack Tretton said the purpose behind removing backward compatibility was to push PS3 software. According to the Journal story, Tretton "conceded that removing that capability, along with a few other features, isn't dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing the console but will instead encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system."

Upsetting? Sony doesn't think it should be, since their research shows most PS3 buyers already have a PS2 anyway. You can handle having a PS2 perpetually plugged into your TV set, can't you? As for more general thoughts on the PS3 price drop, Tretton had this to say: "While we were incredibly excited about the technology in PS3 and while it was future-proofed to some degree, it was a bit ahead of its time. The downside of all that technology was the price we had to offer it to consumer at retail. We knew $599 was going to be a challenge for some people based on traditional videogame pricing."

It's a far cry from Ken Kutaragi's famous claim that users "will want to work more hours" to buy a PS3, huh? Uhh yeah.. wow.. Yeah, let's cut out the only damn thing to play on the console, that's a smart idea.. maybe if people have nothing to play, they'll buy up all the shitty games that aren't selling!

Also, I gotta say, what's up with cutting the cost every other month? I might as well wait another two months when the PS3 will suddenly be $100. haha

[DarkDragoonX]

So the theory is that if you remove the PS3's ability to play great PS2 titles, consumers will purchase shitty PS3 titles to fill the void?

This is starting to get really pathetic.

[Dechipher]

This seems like some form of desperation. The PS3 is ahead of its time, sure, but that won't matter if it doesn't live to see that time.

[Nicholas Steel]

the reasoning in his mind is fucked, i knew from the start that the ps3 would die and this pretty much proves its death is almost imminent.

[mrz84]

And the chances of me (and other people I know) wanting to be a ps3 any time in the future have dropped from 75% to 30%. Way to drive away anybody who'd buy it Sony. :p

[Warlock]

I saw someone in a topic about this say it's like a little kid touching a stove. You tell him not to do it, but he just puts his hand there and touches it anyways.. haha

[MottZilla]

You're all wrong. The 40GB model lacks BC, but the 80GB model has it, as does the 60GB and 20GB if you can find it. So if you want it, you can have it, atleast for now. But it's honestly not a big deal. They do have a point, you likely already own a PS2 anyway. While it is handy to "upgrade" or get rid of the PS2 and just have the PS3 for all your Playstation gaming, it's not a big deal to most and if it is to you, spend 100$ more on the model that will.

This does create some confusion. But in the big picture anything you can do to cut the entry price helps.

Really, how many of you are affected by this? Which of you was going to buy a PS3 and suddenly won't because of this news? And don't lie, if you don't have the money, you weren't going to be buying it so your opinion doesn't really count now does it.

I wouldn't mind having a PS3. I also wouldn't mind getting the 40GB model for 400$ which can't run PS2 games. It's not like I don't have a PS2. So I'd rather save 100$ to buy games than spend an extra 100$ to play the same old games.

You guys are just enjoying beating on Sony, which I can't really blame you too much for that cause it is fun. But I don't think you can claim they are losing so early on. We have the upcoming Holiday and many things coming out next year. I think the $400 model will do well since it puts it on equal footing (more or less) with the Xbox 360 price wise. This holiday season will likely validate their move to get a cheaper model out there.

Sony has its problems, but they still command a huge part of the market, with the PS2 still making them alot of money.

[AtmaWeapon]

Mott has a point but I really do enjoy beating on Sony.

"Sir! People are buying more PS2 games than PS3 games, what do we do?"

"Uhhhh let's quit supporting the PS2 platform on the PS3 that'll do it!"

"Sir! Wouldn't it make more sense to create some stellar lineup of exceptional games that the competition can't offer to choke them out like we did with the -- *gack* *cough* *slump*"

"I find your lack of my marketing genius... disturbing."

Basically if I buy a PS3 I want it to play PS2 games because one day my PS2 will break, and I'm willing to assume that it is reasonably likely that a new PS3 will last longer than an old PS2. However, I'd rather spend $500 on a better TV so my current consoles look better.

Sony really doesn't seem to get it.

[Warlock]

Yeah the whole thing is just stupid. There is literally no reason to do this. It saves them next to nothing. And yeah, I wouldn't buy it strictly because of this. I don't want to have my PS2 eternally plugged in just to play those games again. Not to mention, I only have so many ports on my TV. Right now, Wii and PS2 are taking up my TWO Component inputs. If I want to plug anything else in that's Component, I need to ditch one. And yeah, if the PS2 breaks down, I'd be screwed.

[Aegix Drakan]

"Sir! Wouldn't it make more sense to create some stellar lineup of exceptional games that the competition can't offer to choke them out like we did with the -- *gack* *cough* *slump*"

"I find your lack of my marketing genius... disturbing."


Kupos to you for the Star wars reference, Atma.

And with this...Sony's gaming division has just dug it's own grave, shot itself in the foot, and finally buried itself from the inside of the hole.

:P Removing backwards compatibility? Not a good plan. When the PS2s have all died, then how will people play these great games again? It was bad enough when nintendo cut off the old school gamboy games fro the DS, but this...This is Sony shitting on it's loyal customers yet again...

[AtmaWeapon]

The difference though is my Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color, and all 3 of my Game Boy Advance units are still going strong. They don't have moving parts, so really the limit on their life is the buttons.

The PS2 has moving parts and a reputation for failing after a while.

Really though the biggest problem facing people who look forward to nostalgic gaming in the PS2 and Gamecube era is analog sticks. My N64 controllers could last maybe 6 months. Gamecube controllers seem to last a year or so of heavy use. My PS2 controller seems to losing its thunder in the up direction. What do we do when there aren't any more controllers? :(

[Nicholas Steel]

im not buying a PS3 because they are now trying to use a business model that minimizes features instead of maximizes features..

if we support them then all companies and future consoles will work the same way and in the end the consumers will be the ones hurt.

[Warlock]

Slightly off topic, but I just saw this.. wow:

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x121/fatghost28/LostPlanetcomparisonpic.jpg

What the hell did they do to the PS3 version?

[Nicholas Steel]

there not a screen shot of the same frame, so its a dud comparison.

[AtmaWeapon]

This raises an interesting question:

When constructing a gigantic piece of war machinery that walks upright like a person and spits death from both arms, the chest, and sometimes its weiner... why do you put brake lights on it? Are you concerned that the motorists behind you might not know that you are about to stop and you want to give them warning? Wouldn't they be more concerned with shooting you than safety?

*edit* Also tank treads for a nutsack???

[AlexMax]

Hey guys, I'm white knighting a $499 console with no good games

http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07426/4db2d7918631107382b8ba2245f9cb07aff63a17.jpg (http://xs.to)

[Breaker]

I'm not interested in the PS3 at all. I can easily enough afford either models, but it's just not worth the price tag. PS3's online play is horrible and the graphics aren't that much of an improvement over my 360. I'd rather spend $179 on the HD-DVD addon for the 360 and the rest on fun games.

The next Final Fantasy, which used to be one of the largest reasons I purchased a Playstation, doesn't even look that appealing.

[MottZilla]

Alex, I'm just pointing out how people blow everything out of proportion with PS3. The BC cut isn't such a big deal. I'm sure you'll be able to play PS2 games again when the PS4 comes out and emulates them. ;)

And wow that Lost Planet comparison is sad. Even though they are not the same frame, the PS3 looks to have really bad texturing and lighting.

I just think it's silly to bash Sony and then declare them dead. They still have time to go before you can really declare them dead. Still, aside from the hardware issues and lack of blue laser technology, I support the X360 more than anything. But you have to remember that Sony is M$'s competition, and you can't have Sony lose. If they do, then M$ owns the market, and then everything gets shitty.

[AtmaWeapon]

If they do, then M$ owns the market, and then everything gets shitty.Shut up.

I tried using that excuse about Nintendo vs. Sony when there wasn't a Microsoft to worry about, and again when the XBox was a joke. The response?

HURRRR GAMECUBE SUCKS NINTENDO SUCKS WHY DON'T YOU GO PLAY SUPER SMASH HELLO KITTY YOU LITTLE BOY AHAHAHA GAMECUBE SUCKS GAMECUBE SUCKS.

You know what? PS3 sucks. The XBox 360 is superior in every way, and it is surpassed by the Wii in several ways as well. The XBox 360 delivers better graphics at a cheaper price with inferior hardware. XBox 360 delivers a better online play experience. XBox 360 is almost fully backwards compatible with the XBox, and Microsoft is committed to maintaining the backwards compatibility.

What's the PS3 got over the XBox 360? Blu-Ray and games from franchises that jumped the shark 5 sequels ago.

The Wii delivers a library of games you can't put down. You hate the Wii because you hated the Gamecube because you hated the N64 because it didn't have violent games on it. Let it go. Even though the Wii supposedly has worse games, worse graphics, and actually has no online experience, want to know what the Wii can do that PS3 has been completely unable to do? Sell enough units to empty the stock of every store in a region. Sony had to go so far as to pretend PS3 had done so to keep their feelings intact. So even though I have to admit the hardware is many times inferior to the PS3, you cannot deny that the games are fun and the system is cheap, which is precisely what has always brought success to a gaming company.

Even though you think PS3 is God's gift I assure you the reason that people hate on it has nothing to do with a predetermined bias and everything to do with these handy bullet points: Less features Higher price Marketing people that spin the above two as "more valuable features!" A continuous backpedaling on BC support, arguably the cheapest element of the system Inferior graphics Lack of compelling gamesI understand that perhaps it hasn't had enough time to gather an impressive game library because it takes a long time to make games these days. That's a hole you next-gen jerks dug yourself. The more complicated you want your stupid graphics to be the longer you're going to have to wait for your mediocre games. You've helped would the PS3, congratulations.

[The_Amaster]

Yeah, Mott, you seem to be missing the point of why most of us are mad. Sure, the BC would be great, and it's a bad buisness move on their part. But the thing that really makes me hate Sony is the reason behind this move. They did it in order to push the new, crappy PS3 games. Instead of actually producing quality stuff for it, they just want to cut off the alternatives.

Yeah, I'm a die-hard Nintendo fanatic and a Microsoft hater to boot, and even I say that the 360 is an amazing piece of hardware.

[MottZilla]

Shut up.

I tried using that excuse about Nintendo vs. Sony when there wasn't a Microsoft to worry about, and again when the XBox was a joke. The response?

HURRRR GAMECUBE SUCKS NINTENDO SUCKS WHY DON'T YOU GO PLAY SUPER SMASH HELLO KITTY YOU LITTLE BOY AHAHAHA GAMECUBE SUCKS GAMECUBE SUCKS.


Not my fault if people are idiots man.



You know what? PS3 sucks. The XBox 360 is superior in every way, and it is surpassed by the Wii in several ways as well. The XBox 360 delivers better graphics at a cheaper price with inferior hardware. XBox 360 delivers a better online play experience. XBox 360 is almost fully backwards compatible with the XBox, and Microsoft is committed to maintaining the backwards compatibility.

Not everyway, but in most it is. The 360 has some bad points, like DVD storage limits, lacks of harddrive standard for caching, and poor hardware reliability. But that's about it, and indeed destroys PS3 in other areas like ease of development, unified memory, online play.

The 360 does BC via software, so it's not like they can't afford to put it in every model. Anyways..



What's the PS3 got over the XBox 360? Blu-Ray and games from franchises that jumped the shark 5 sequels ago.

Blu-ray and a standard hard drive too. But yes, it doesn't really have anything new and exciting. But it will take time, afterall look how late into PS2 many great titles came out. I don't think they can beat the Xbox now though. But you can't just consider the PS3 a flop. You are over estimating the intelligence of the average consumer.



The Wii delivers a library of games you can't put down.

The Wii has some cool games, but it has some horrifying ones too. See Red Steel.



You hate the Wii because you hated the Gamecube because you hated the N64 because it didn't have violent games on it. Let it go.

Really? Funny because I loved the GameCube. And I loved the N64. And I played violent games on both. Got anything else left?



Even though the Wii supposedly has worse games, worse graphics, and actually has no online experience, want to know what the Wii can do that PS3 has been completely unable to do? Sell enough units to empty the stock of every store in a region. Sony had to go so far as to pretend PS3 had done so to keep their feelings intact. So even though I have to admit the hardware is many times inferior to the PS3, you cannot deny that the games are fun and the system is cheap, which is precisely what has always brought success to a gaming company.

Just remember, Nintendo is a business and employs a "just enough" type strategy. It would work against Nintendo to ramp up Wii hardware production as high as possible. It benifits them to make and ship just enough that they will all be snapped up immediately. I would certainly disagree with the statement that the Wii has worse games than the PS3. We all know that's not true. The Wii has some very cool games. I never said the Wii sucks ass and has no good games or anything like that. I also think it's relative to say the Wii is cheap. For $250 I could get much more advanced hardware. I think it's too much for me. But like I said before my main interests in games these days are online play and massive scale games.



Even though you think PS3 is God's gift I assure you the reason that people hate on it has nothing to do with a predetermined bias and everything to do with these handy bullet points: Less features Higher price Marketing people that spin the above two as "more valuable features!" A continuous backpedaling on BC support, arguably the cheapest element of the system Inferior graphics Lack of compelling gamesI understand that perhaps it hasn't had enough time to gather an impressive game library because it takes a long time to make games these days. That's a hole you next-gen jerks dug yourself. The more complicated you want your stupid graphics to be the longer you're going to have to wait for your mediocre games. You've helped would the PS3, congratulations.

Why did I say PS3 is god's gift? That just your Sony hate right there. Less features? Less than what? I find this is just related to the killing off of PS2 BC in the 40GB model. Higher price, well DUH! This is the #1 problem.

The marketing sucks, we've known that since the PSP came out.

The cutting on BC is understandable when the system came out at $600 and sold at a loss. Remember that the PSTwo retails at 130$ and contains primarily the same EE+GS that is in the original PS3. So it would be adding a significant cost to them. So they cut it down to just the GS and emulate the EE via software, which I believe worked just fine. The real problem is them being cheap and cutting out the GS.

Inferior graphics isn't the hardware's fault entirely. Alot of the PS3's problems are the result of poor development tools (just like PS2). This situation could and should improve.

The lack of games, it's comparable to the Xbox 360's first year really. For the first year I played Perfect Dark Zero, Dead Rising.... And then finally around the year mark Gears of War came out. Now lets see what does PS3 have. Well it has Ninja Gaiden Sigma, even though it's the NGX update, if you didn't have an Xbox it's still new to you. It's got that Resistance game. It's got alot of multiplatform titles. I really don't think the game selection is as bad as people make it out to be, as they act like it's permenant.

Oh and this thing about next-gen games taking so long to make? Assassin's Creed has been in development for 4 years. Hm, fucking Zelda OoT was in development for atleast that long. And there wasn't anywhere near the amount of content. You may love the Wii, hate the PS3, and make love to the X360 in the dark shadows were no one can see you, but some of us don't have to swear alligance to one console. Some of us can see the faults and positives of each console and don't feel the need to jump all over and hate a particular platform for no real reason.

Edit:

AMaster, I understand people being made they have to pay more for BC. But I already made my point that if you want BC you can get it still. But people act as if this is the death of Sony. That's just foolish. People are too jumpy and eager to shout disaster. I agree that cutting BC to force people to buy PS3 games would be a bad idea. But that's a lie. The real reason it was cut was for cost, to get a lower priced PS3 out for the holidays. It's not Sony being evil. It's Sony trying to listen to consumers. Consumers say PS3 costs too much. Consumers also generally own a PS2 already. Solution, cut PS2 support from a new PS3 SKU since they don't NEED it. But remember so far they aren't cutting BC from all units. The 80GB ($500) SKU still supports it. And the 60GB can still be found for $500 or less and has both the EE+GS. Jack Tretton is a douche bag and not in charge of anything. Sony of Japan makes all the decisions.

[Warlock]

The Wii has some cool games, but it has some horrifying ones too. See Red Steel.

See every single game console ever made. EVERY console has shitty games. It's the ratio of good to shitty that you need to look at.

[MottZilla]

That's true, but alot of you are neglecting to really look at the good titles that you could get on PS3. There are good titles. Yes alot are also on 360, but it doesn't take away from the PS3 unless you have a 360.

Alot of you seem to act that you want to see Sony curl up and die. While I can understand the hate for their attitude like they had early on with PS3 and PS2, I don't think it would help if Sony bit the dust and no longer made Playstation products. They certainly will be getting a much needed ass kicking/reality check, but don't forget how many of you own Playstation products. Wouldn't you want them to improve? Or do you just want a 2 party system where you have Nintendo making Wii games and Microsoft owning everything else?

[Warlock]

I don't think wanting them to succeed because you don't want Microsoft to succeed is a very good reason :P

[MottZilla]

No, we don't want M$ not to "succeed". I want them to do very well. But outright domination would potentially lead to problems.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

That's true, but alot of you are neglecting to really look at the good titles that you could get on PS3. There are good titles. Yes alot are also on 360, but it doesn't take away from the PS3 unless you have a 360.

Alot of you seem to act that you want to see Sony curl up and die. While I can understand the hate for their attitude like they had early on with PS3 and PS2, I don't think it would help if Sony bit the dust and no longer made Playstation products. They certainly will be getting a much needed ass kicking/reality check, but don't forget how many of you own Playstation products. Wouldn't you want them to improve? Or do you just want a 2 party system where you have Nintendo making Wii games and Microsoft owning everything else?

I'm going to add to this something very important. If the PS3 is way more powerful than the 360, then if a game goes to both consoles, it is more than likely that the PS3 version will be way better.

Hell remember back when DOOM was on just about every console including the SNES? Or when just about all NES/SNES games were ported to the gameboy? How many people said, "I don't wanna buy an SNES because I can get mortal kombat on gameboy"? Very few, if any, would have said that. Yet here we are, with 2 systems that huge such a big power difference, arguing against the higher powered one because primitive versions of its games can be found on the lower powered one. Does that make any sense?

[Nicholas Steel]

I'm going to add to this something very important. If the PS3 is way more powerful than the 360, then if a game goes to both consoles, it is more than likely that the PS3 version will be way better.

shame the xbox so far has the better game quality when it comes to multi port games ;)

it depends entirely on the engine/architecture that the game was originally based on.

[Warlock]

I'm going to add to this something very important. If the PS3 is way more powerful than the 360, then if a game goes to both consoles, it is more than likely that the PS3 version will be way better.

Hell remember back when DOOM was on just about every console including the SNES? Or when just about all NES/SNES games were ported to the gameboy? How many people said, "I don't wanna buy an SNES because I can get mortal kombat on gameboy"? Very few, if any, would have said that. Yet here we are, with 2 systems that huge such a big power difference, arguing against the higher powered one because primitive versions of its games can be found on the lower powered one. Does that make any sense?

PS3 is *not* more powerful. If anything, it's convoluted system archetecture makes games more difficult to develop and generally looking worse than 360. It has *potential* to be better, but this is maybe 6 years down the road, by which time it won't make a damn difference.

[Nicholas Steel]

exactly, the 360 would kill the ps3 before anyone becomes proficient in coding for the ps3.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

PS3 is *not* more powerful. If anything, it's convoluted system archetecture makes games more difficult to develop and generally looking worse than 360. It has *potential* to be better, but this is maybe 6 years down the road, by which time it won't make a damn difference.

That's odd, PS3 is ahead of its time, 360 is not, and yet despite this, it isn't more powerful. Very weird indeed.

[Warlock]

PS3 is not ahead of its time. This is corporate spin that Sony wants you to believe. It's their way of explaining why it's doing so poor ("Oh, the system is so advanced that developers haven't figured out how to use all that power yet")

[Anarchy_Balsac]

That may be so but the fact remains that it is a system's specs, not how well it is used that dictates its actual power. It may or may not be that companies are using PS3's power to make ports to it better, but it's certainly true that it will indeed have at least some games that do. I'd be shocked if MGS4 did not use the PS3's power to its fullest extent(of course, I'd also be shocked if Hideo Kojima did not find yet another way to piss us off with it, but that's another topic).

[mrz84]

exactly, the 360 would kill the ps3 before anyone becomes proficient in coding for the ps3.

I must disagree. I point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgaea_3 and its awesomeness. I want a PS3 now just for this. :kitty:

[MottZilla]

The thing is that the PS3's strengths are very clear to lay out, and not nessisarily something you can apply in the real world. You have the CELL processor, the Blu-ray capacity, and the standard HardDrive to count on.

Blu-ray can help, though depending on the type of game, multipule DVDs would have worked too. The hard drive caching can make a big difference, but not nessisarily. The 360 has a 16X DVD-ROM drive which is quite fast anyway. The CELL processor, truely is capable of moving alot of memory around/doing "things". The problem is the real world use of these "things" it can do. In a scientific use like the folding program, you can probably take full advantage. But in a video game, it's probably alot harder to really use all the potential CPU power in any way that helps, not to mention it would take special care which developers don't like to do these days. No one wants to have to figure out the PS3's setup and write a game specifically to work best on it. They want to make an engine that runs on both PS3, Xbox 360, and maybe even PC.

So yes the PS3 has alot of potential in it, but I doubt it will really matter. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are more or less on equal footing and the 360 has gotten much better software support and a 1 year lead that really helped.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

The thing is that the PS3's strengths are very clear to lay out, and not nessisarily something you can apply in the real world. You have the CELL processor, the Blu-ray capacity, and the standard HardDrive to count on.

Blu-ray can help, though depending on the type of game, multipule DVDs would have worked too. The hard drive caching can make a big difference, but not nessisarily. The 360 has a 16X DVD-ROM drive which is quite fast anyway. The CELL processor, truely is capable of moving alot of memory around/doing "things". The problem is the real world use of these "things" it can do. In a scientific use like the folding program, you can probably take full advantage. But in a video game, it's probably alot harder to really use all the potential CPU power in any way that helps, not to mention it would take special care which developers don't like to do these days. No one wants to have to figure out the PS3's setup and write a game specifically to work best on it. They want to make an engine that runs on both PS3, Xbox 360, and maybe even PC.

So yes the PS3 has alot of potential in it, but I doubt it will really matter. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are more or less on equal footing and the 360 has gotten much better software support and a 1 year lead that really helped.

This neglects one major factor.

Remember when PS2 first came out and no one was using it to it''s full potential? Remember what happened? MGS2 that's what After that developers did indeed start using the console properly. And I'm not hard pressed to believe that MGS4 may do the same for PS3.

[MottZilla]

This neglects one major factor.

Remember when PS2 first came out and no one was using it to it''s full potential? Remember what happened? MGS2 that's what After that developers did indeed start using the console properly. And I'm not hard pressed to believe that MGS4 may do the same for PS3.

There's a key difference though. The PS2 still followed the normal setup. You have a CPU, a GPU, and a SPU (Processing, Graphics, Sound) setup. This is like most machines. The problem with early PS2 was the tools just didn't exist, people didn't have any support from Sony, it was the wild west.

The PS3 does too have development problems, but now you have a complex multicore cpu sort of design. The PS3 to get good performance must have the game using the SPEs effectively. The Xbox 360 and the PC have much more standard ways of doing these things. The 360 has 3 cores, and a PC having one or two, and I've heard of four. The PS3 has 7 of these little units you need to use. It's rather ridiculus really.

All I'm saying is expect them to start making better quality and more solid games, but don't expect as much of a leap as we saw with PS2. I'm sure MGS4 will be a high quality title and certainly one PS3 owner will love. But I'm also not convinced we won't see MGS4 ported to X360.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

There's a key difference though. The PS2 still followed the normal setup. You have a CPU, a GPU, and a SPU (Processing, Graphics, Sound) setup. This is like most machines. The problem with early PS2 was the tools just didn't exist, people didn't have any support from Sony, it was the wild west.

The PS3 does too have development problems, but now you have a complex multicore cpu sort of design. The PS3 to get good performance must have the game using the SPEs effectively. The Xbox 360 and the PC have much more standard ways of doing these things. The 360 has 3 cores, and a PC having one or two, and I've heard of four. The PS3 has 7 of these little units you need to use. It's rather ridiculus really.

All I'm saying is expect them to start making better quality and more solid games, but don't expect as much of a leap as we saw with PS2. I'm sure MGS4 will be a high quality title and certainly one PS3 owner will love. But I'm also not convinced we won't see MGS4 ported to X360.

Although you have a point about the PS2 having different development problems, that's still no reason that a little competition from konami can't still spark things in the PS3's favor the way it did for PS2. Companies can accomplish something if they want to, it's just that they don't see it in their feasible profit margins for now. But with MGS4 bringing fire to their feet, I can easily see things begin to shift. And yeah, MGS4 could be ported to the 360, but only in the same sense that DOOM could have been ported to the NES. They might still bother to do it, but 360 customers will be missing out bigtime on the detailed gameplay, I'm not simply talking pretty graphics either.

[AlexMax]

Just throwing this out there, but Sony has lost over a billion dollars over the past two quarters.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/07q2_sony.pdf

I dunno what else I can say about this other than "holy shit".

[Grasshopper]

Sadly developers are just going to have to deal with it. Its standard now to see PCs come with Dual Core processors, with Quad Cores sometime in the future. With chip designers trying to squeeze every ounce of power out of their processors, single core chips are a thing of the past. You can only process data so fast in such a small space without overheating. Everyone wants more processors, more cores, more power, faster load times, better graphics, bigger enviroments...and sooner or later something has to give. You scoff at the Cell Processor for being so ridiculous. For what? Because it has more cores than the others? Its just a matter of time before other chip designers have just as many. 5...10...15 years from now? Its just going to get worse. Sure, Sony may have made some poor business decisions about the PS3, but does that make the technology inside the PS3 any worse than others? Media, People, Fanboys...all make out that because Sony is such a company with all the mistakes they've made, the PS3 itself is a reflection of it. The PS3 may not be leaps and bounds above competition, but its nothing to laugh at.

The only problem I really see is that Sony has no clue on how to market the PS3 in order to sell it; removing or adding things here and there trying to find the sweet spot. You get fluctuating prices and changes in the hardware, and the people that suffer from it are the consumers.

Just my $.02

[MottZilla]

The problem is the way the CELL works though. It's not the same as having 7 AMD64 cores or 7 Intel Core2 cores. Hell for gaming you'd be better off with just an AMD64 X2 or a dual core Core2 from Intel. Slamming as many cpu cores as you can into a machine doesn't help. They have to have a reasonable purpose. And it makes PS3 an oddball. 7 SPEs you need to spoon feed, where Xbox 360 has 3 cores, and I think atleast 5 threads the developer can use.. and then the PCs generally might have 2 cores these days. But no one has 7 or a need for 7 and each CELL SPE I doubt can compare to a AMD or Intel core.

CELL also suffers from overhype. They were hyping this shit so bad you'd have thought it was going to make everything else obsolete and a pile of dust. Not true at all.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

The problem is the way the CELL works though. It's not the same as having 7 AMD64 cores or 7 Intel Core2 cores. Hell for gaming you'd be better off with just an AMD64 X2 or a dual core Core2 from Intel. Slamming as many cpu cores as you can into a machine doesn't help. They have to have a reasonable purpose. And it makes PS3 an oddball. 7 SPEs you need to spoon feed, where Xbox 360 has 3 cores, and I think atleast 5 threads the developer can use.. and then the PCs generally might have 2 cores these days. But no one has 7 or a need for 7 and each CELL SPE I doubt can compare to a AMD or Intel core.

That's like saying, "We don't need a faster car, so why learn to drive one?" Yes its more complex than that but simple fact is, while it may take time for companies to get adjusted to the PS3, they'll probably go ahead learn it once pressure is on them to do so. To say they won't use something better simply because they don't need something better, no, I'm afraid that doesn't follow. Some will be lazy, but when non-lazy competition is beating them out they'll have to either get off their asses or take a hit to their profits.

Edit- And the CELL thing, that's just presupposition and not fact. I may go dig up the specs on those things later on when I have time, which atm I do not.

[Cloral]

But that's assuming that the cell is better. The problem though with it has to do with things like the program's critical path. There's really only so much parallelism that can be extracted from a particular application. So at some point, throwing additional cores at the problem doesn't actually garner any sort of improvement in performance. In addition, the design of the cell architecture is a bit backwards, making it near impossible to keep enough instructions in each core's instruction queue to keep them busy all the time.

Is the PS3 capable of better than what it is currently doing? Probably. But is it a supercomputer that is way ahead of the 360? I'm not sure it is even on par with the 360.

[Grasshopper]

Yeah, I agree with you Mott. Sony hyped the Cell Processor as the next best thing since sliced bread, but thats the media. That doesn't really have any outcome out how well it performs. If it under-performs, or exceeds expectations, the media can't directly affect that. Unfortunately, it affects the consumers. At the end of the day though, you're still left with what you had to begin with.

Cloral, I'm glad you brought that up. I've not looked up specifics on processors nor do I really care to, and I sure haven't created any applications using them. So you'll be more experienced with this than me. I'm curious as to how exactly the Cell Processor is sub par to the Xbox 360. I don't believe its above par, and I don't doubt that the additional cores are wasted space where you don't have any processes to keep it busy. But what exactly makes it "sub par"? Is the processor itself just poorly designed compared to AMD X2 or Intel's Core Duo?

[Anarchy_Balsac]

But that's assuming that the cell is better. The problem though with it has to do with things like the program's critical path. There's really only so much parallelism that can be extracted from a particular application. So at some point, throwing additional cores at the problem doesn't actually garner any sort of improvement in performance. In addition, the design of the cell architecture is a bit backwards, making it near impossible to keep enough instructions in each core's instruction queue to keep them busy all the time.

Yes but you're assuming they would reach that limit, and it takes a LOT to reach a limit with 7 processers, be they subpar or not. Was the cell overhyped? Maybe, but even then that doesn't mean it's bad, just that it isn't as good as hyped. But really, all systems have their specs hyped so saying that the PS3 isn't any different is certainly not a reason to say it isn't better than the 360.

[Cloral]

The PS3 has some issues with memory bandwidth and the like. I haven't dealt too much with the lower-level aspects of the system (we've got a guy for that), but this is what I've gleaned:

* There is effectively less memory on the PS3 than the 360. Both have the same amount of total memory, but the PS3 segregates between VRAM and DRAM, while the 360 allows all memory to be used for any purpose. In addition, the PS3 system software uses more memory than the 360 system software, leaving less available for the game.
* The shared bus architecture makes it difficult to keep enough instructions in all the cores all the time, meaning that frequently there are cores sitting around doing nothing.
* It is possible to offload graphics operations to some of the cores. This means that the PS3 is actually capable of more complex graphics than the 360, but it also means that the graphics routines have to be a lot more complex to harness this extra power.
* The Blu-ray drive is slower than the DVD on the 360. However, the extra space on the blu-ray means that the data can be replicated several times, which helps reduce seek times. This actually helps enough to make load times slightly faster on the ps3 than the 360 when this technique is applied.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

The PS3 has some issues with memory bandwidth and the like. I haven't dealt too much with the lower-level aspects of the system (we've got a guy for that), but this is what I've gleaned:

* There is effectively less memory on the PS3 than the 360. Both have the same amount of total memory, but the PS3 segregates between VRAM and DRAM, while the 360 allows all memory to be used for any purpose. In addition, the PS3 system software uses more memory than the 360 system software, leaving less available for the game.

Be more specific than that. The reason I say that is because if one system has 8 MB for all purposes and the other has 6MB for VRAM and 6MB for DRAM, then to say that the former has "effectively less" memory is nothing short of number crunching.


* The shared bus architecture makes it difficult to keep enough instructions in all the cores all the time, meaning that frequently there are cores sitting around doing nothing.

You don't have to use all processors simultaneously, in fact, it is better that the ones you don't need are "sitting around going nothing" because that conserves power, memory, and allows the others to process faster. If the 360 doesn't allow this, which by your post I am guessing that it doesn't, that's bad.


* It is possible to offload graphics operations to some of the cores. This means that the PS3 is actually capable of more complex graphics than the 360, but it also means that the graphics routines have to be a lot more complex to harness this extra power.

So? You always need more complex routines to make use out of systems that are more advanced. Is it really necessary to point out that better graphics=more work? I mean I understand not wanting to work hard, because I'm a lazy person myself, but it goes without saying that to get more, you have to work more.

It is true that more advanced systems sometimes try to make things easier and even come with tools that can do so, but even then you almost always still have a harder time producing more quality than you did producing a previous system's quality without said tools.

Take character models for instance. I promise you'll have an easier time producing 10 8-bit sprites than you will producing 1 128-bit character model. That example is indeed extreme, but it's about as lamen's terms as I can get with it.


* The Blu-ray drive is slower than the DVD on the 360. However, the extra space on the blu-ray means that the data can be replicated several times, which helps reduce seek times. This actually helps enough to make load times slightly faster on the ps3 than the 360 when this technique is applied.

And a slightly faster drive is a good thing right? I know what you are saying though, but that last part just demonstrates my point which is blu ray != DVD. Even with an initially slower drive and more processing and all it is still faster(even if slightly), which is pretty good.

[Warlock]

Anarchy's posts remind me of this:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070924.jpg

[Cloral]

I wasn't saying all those things are bad. I was pointing out some of the differences between the consoles. And as you point out, the last point actually turns out to be a good thing for the PS3.

As for the memory, both systems have the same amount of total memory (i.e. the DRAM + VRAM on the PS3 = the general RAM on the 360).

[MottZilla]

Anarchy_Balsac, apparently you don't know what you are talking about if you think the more cpus you cram into something the better. Like Cloral mentioned, there's only so many ways to do things in a game, and only so many ways you could utilize additional processors. Often times in multi cpu setups you waste alot of that power because one cpu is waiting for another to finish its work before it can begin it's own. And that is bad because why even have two processors if they can't both be working at the same time? That's the whole point! CELL strikes me as more useful for boring number crunching uses, and not as practical for video games.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious you have no clue what you are talking about, especially with this comment about it being "good" that cores sit idle to "save power".

[Anarchy_Balsac]

I wasn't saying all those things are bad. I was pointing out some of the differences between the consoles. And as you point out, the last point actually turns out to be a good thing for the PS3.

As for the memory, both systems have the same amount of total memory (i.e. the DRAM + VRAM on the PS3 = the general RAM on the 360).

Fair enough. I did double check this and it seems this is indeed the case.


Anarchy_Balsac, apparently you don't know what you are talking about if you think the more cpus you cram into something the better.

Yeah, good one, you're correct and the person you're arguing with is wrong because you say so. Could we do without ad hominem attacks? Yes, cramming more processors into something does work better, it may be only one factor, but it is a major one. I mean to deny that is to deny that an individual processor having less burden due to the presence of another processors will increase speed, and I'm afraid that is not something I could conceivably deny.


Often times in multi cpu setups you waste alot of that power because one cpu is waiting for another to finish its work before it can begin it's own. And that is bad because why even have two processors if they can't both be working at the same time? That's the whole point! CELL strikes me as more useful for boring number crunching uses, and not as practical for video games.

PS3 can in fact run all its processors at once, so this is irrelevant. It has to run at least 2 at once at any given time anyway because one of them is reserved for the OS. The only exception to this being when it's running no games.

Is it harder to get them all running at once? Well 6(which is all that developers have access to with the 7th being exclusively for the OS) vs. 3, yeah 6 is going to be harder, but that's how it is. It would be nice if it was easier to do more than less but it isn't. Now it may or may not be more difficult to get 2 running at once on PS3 than it is to get 2 running at once on 360, but it is possible to get all 6 of the processors which developers have access to all running at once.



Anyway, it's pretty obvious you have no clue what you are talking about, especially with this comment about it being "good" that cores sit idle to "save power".

And tell me how it is that a core wastes power by doing nothing. See, the problem is you think a core would waste power sitting idle in the same way your computer does. However when your computer is sitting idle it is in fact doing something, specifically it is running it's power supply and a few other things to keep itself on.

An idle processor is idle because there is no power running across it, which means no power used. At least that's it in a nutshell, what's usually going on is actually much more complicated than that. There is no way for me to put this in lamen's terms, but the answer is that they are what's called integrated circuits, and as such unless they receive the correct series of signals they act like a disconnect, which is what the "off" part of a light switch is, and so they would waste no more power from not running than your light switch does in the off position.

Now it may be true that the power saved by processors not running is minimal if they are in parallel(which I'm guessing that they are if it's called "parallel process") but it certainly doesn't waste power.

[AlexMax]

So? You always need more complex routines to make use out of systems that are more advanced. Is it really necessary to point out that better graphics=more work? I mean I understand not wanting to work hard, because I'm a lazy person myself, but it goes without saying that to get more, you have to work more.

It is true that more advanced systems sometimes try to make things easier and even come with tools that can do so, but even then you almost always still have a harder time producing more quality than you did producing a previous system's quality without said tools.

Take character models for instance. I promise you'll have an easier time producing 10 8-bit sprites than you will producing 1 128-bit character model. That example is indeed extreme, but it's about as lamen's terms as I can get with it.

You know what other console was a pain in the ass to program for because of a novel design? The Sega Saturn.

Just because something has more 'potential' doesn't mean that people are always going to bother unlocking said potential. More than likely, they will get it 'good enough' and you then end up with PS3 ports that look worse than their 360 equvilents. Even first party titles don't have it easy either, take a look at how terrible Lair looks.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

You know what other console was a pain in the ass to program for because of a novel design? The Sega Saturn.

Just because something has more 'potential' doesn't mean that people are always going to bother unlocking said potential. More than likely, they will get it 'good enough' and you then end up with PS3 ports that look worse than their 360 equvilents. Even first party titles don't have it easy either, take a look at how terrible Lair looks.

That is a good point. However I would argue good enough would mean that the PS3 titles still look better than their 360 counterparts, but just aren't as powerful as they could be.

Sadly though I think the saturn died because the hype was with sony and nintendo, I think the fact that it was tough to program for didn't help, but overall it was hype. Which is pretty sad because it just goes to show sensation>common sense in the gamming world. And in all fairness, MGS2 wasn't quite the epitome of PS2's full potential either, but rather just a decent use of it.

I do agree however, that there are pitfalls with making systems complex. As to whether or sony could have done a better job of making their system more transparent, well, they didn't do that so well with PS2 so I would not be surprised if this was also the case with PS3. All I'm saying is if MGS4 ends up being a decent demonstration of the PS3's true power the way in which MGS2 was for PS2(which at this point, it certainly looks to be), that PS3 could easily see a bright future beyond it's release.