*RUMOR* Sony Moving Away from Cell-Based PS4

Ecofreak

Ecofreak

CAGiversary!
Feedback
24 (100%)
There's likely been some discussion of this already, but not to this depth of detail -- so I thought it might be worth talking about as we're maybe 40-50% done w/ this generation of consoles.

Original Article

[quote name='AdrianSang.com']Technology writer Hiroshige Goto has shared a few insider tips on the future of the PlayStation brand in the latest installment of his Weekly Overseas News column at Impress Watch.

Previously, Goto reported that Sony was looking both into a Cell-based and Intel Larrabee-based architecture for PlayStation 4.

...

Regarding Cell, some time in 2008, the company asked game publishers what they'd want of a Cell-based PS4 in terms of number of SPU co-processors and what kind of programming difficulties they've been having with the current design.

...

Goto says there are signs that some time this summer, Sony was looking into using this updated SPU design in the core of the PS4. At the very least, he says, the design was a strong candidate.

However, he's recently started hearing about other plans. While he's unable to get into the specifics, at a broad level, the new plans call for a PC-like multicore setup.

Goto also provided a few guesses as to when we'll see the next generation of hardwaree. He believes that because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, are looking into architecture solutions now in 2009, the next generation will come around 2012. The reason for this is that it takes 24 months to take a system from concept to production.

In addition, he expects next generation portable systems like PSP2 to precede the release of next generation consoles.[/quote]

Honestly, it makes sense that Sony would shift the PS4 towards a more PC-like setup as many developers are (rightfully) just now getting their mind around the Cell architecture, while many are fluently versed in PC development. And some developers (like Valve) outright refuse to develop for the PS3 because of the Cell.

So now we have the Big 3 converging in both architecture, likely specs, greater focus on the casual market, and all having some sort of motion-based control scheme.

It'll all come down to exclusive titles through 1st parties, and hopefully the days of inferior ports will be a thing of the past (or at least, end a lot sooner).
 
Honestly, It makes NO sense to move towards a PC-like architecture. The developers are finally starting to get the hang of programming for the PS3 and it's CELL processor. A next-gen CELL for the PS4 (or even 2 CELL processors that the PS3 currently uses) would be better than throwing in a PC-like CPU. We already know Microsoft is going to use a PC CPU, and the last thing Sony needs to do for next-gen is follow the same path as MS.

Plus, keeping the CELL (or using a newer generation of the CELL) should help Sony keep the PS4 backwards compatible with the PS3. Load times shouldn't be an issue by 2012, assuming Sony includes an 8x Blu-ray player. That would mean 288Mbits (36MB) a second, which is twice the max of DVDs (I believe). Add in a 7200 HDD (or possibly an SSD model/option) and storage won't be an issue, nor will loads times keep us waiting they some games do now. The great thing is cost-wise, the PS4 should be cheaper than the original PS3 price...and that's great news for both us as consumers and Sony because that means more units should be moved early on.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Honestly, It makes NO sense to move towards a PC-like architecture. The developers are finally starting to get the hang of programming for the PS3 and it's CELL processor. A next-gen CELL for the PS4 (or even 2 CELL processors that the PS3 currently uses) would be better than throwing in a PC-like CPU. We already know Microsoft is going to use a PC CPU, and the last thing Sony needs to do for next-gen is follow the same path as MS.

Plus, keeping the CELL (or using a newer generation of the CELL) should help Sony keep the PS4 backwards compatible with the PS3. Load times shouldn't be an issue by 2012, assuming Sony includes an 8x Blu-ray player. That would mean 288Mbits (36MB) a second, which is twice the max of DVDs (I believe). Add in a 7200 HDD (or possibly an SSD model/option) and storage won't be an issue, nor will loads times keep us waiting they some games do now. The great thing is cost-wise, the PS4 should be cheaper than the original PS3 price...and that's great news for both us as consumers and Sony because that means more units should be moved early on.[/QUOTE]

There are a few things I want with a PS4
- Faster, more consumer-friendly interface
- If they're going to keep going with Home, integrate it with the XMB
- A faster BR drive, but keeping the same slot-loading tech
- Backwards Compatibility with PS1/2/3 games
- An internal, hardware-based scaler
- Oh, and everything on the XMB working in-game (soundtracks, messages, chat, Store, etc.)

They should also focus on making things easier for developers and having some stuff back from the PS2 hardware tech that basically made anything possible on the thing.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']
They should also focus on making things easier for developers and having some stuff back from the PS2 hardware tech that basically made anything possible on the thing.[/QUOTE]

That's the one big thing Sony really has to do. Unless they decide to be stupid, I couldn't see the PS4 going past $400 at launch, if that. Worst case I could see them putting 2 SKUs out, with a big'un at $300-400, and a smaller one $100 less.

Their first party stuff is darn good. This year they churned out some great games, and they've got quite a few we know about for next year. They just need third parties on board, so if they're going to keep the Cell, they have to do something to make it easier for developers to use. I know next to nothing about GPUs or CPUs, but it's been fairly clear from developer interviews that it takes quite a bit of time/resources to get a game up to snuff on the PS3, so it might not necessarily be hard, but time consuming, though stuff like Dragon Age makes me wonder, since it was BioWare's first time out with the PS3 and they did an awesome job.

Didn't Naughty Dog or one of Sony's other developers made their source code or something like that (again, I suck with nitty gritty of technology) available to anyone? Seems like a good old start to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't they spend billions developing the Cell? And wasn't is supposed to have a very long life span?

Whatever the case, it's no secret that most developers suck at doing their job on the PS3 for one reason or another (and I don't buy the whole, "it's too hard to develop for, WAHHH!!!!" arguement) so I'm not surprised they're looking into alternatives. As KingBroly posted, I would definitely want the PS4 to be BC with PS3 games but if they move to a new architecture, that would complicate things...
 
Well, to be honest, it really is too hard. The architecture is complicated and only provides performance boosts in certain areas, but even then those boosts are hard to access. Although, the reason why it's hard is that people are generally used to programming for the PC. This is a fact that MS and the Xbox line of consoles has used to get a lot of support from PC developers.

Since developer support is what makes money for a console, it's not the fault of the developer to have to deal with shoddy architecture, poor developer support, poor API, and poor tools, especially when there's a competitor out there with just as good a product, doing all that better. Of course, this has changed recently since Sony has been making a big effort to support developers more, and create tools to make it easier to develop on the PS3.

I think what we'll see is something more like the PC architecture, similar to the 360. However, not one to abandon technology, and maybe give themselves a processing edge, they'll likely throw in elements of the cell architecture, provided it can be produced cheaply. I suspect the SPU concept isn't that expensive anymore.

This has two benefits, it makes it easier and more cost effective for PC developers to do multi platform titles on the PS3 and get feature parity.

This also is in line with Stringer's new focus on the software aspects of Sony's Computer Entertainment Divisions. Because face it, the real reason why Sony failed the launch is the software as much as it was the high price of hardware.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']

Technology writer Hiroshige Goto...

He believes that because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, are looking into architecture solutions now in 2009, the next generation will come around 2012. The reason for this is that it takes 24 months to take a system from concept to production.

so I thought it might be worth talking about as we're maybe 40-50% done w/ this generation of consoles.


And some developers (like Valve) outright refuse to develop for the PS3 because of the Cell.
[/QUOTE]

At least he's not a analyst, but still nothing but pure speculation on his part.

Next Gen in 2012, whaa....:drool: bull pucky. :roll: With the amount of money Sony has to make back on the PS3, there is no way they are going to put major cash into a new system just yet, prototyping, yes I'll believe that, but getting ready for a new system roll-out in 3 scant years, I don't think so.

Even MS doesn't want to gear up a new system considering they were the one's that killed the Xbox in a little over 3 years on the market to release the 360 early because they wanted that year lead time over Sony and Nintendo. Now that Sony has stated a 10 year life span, they have also stated their desire to do that. The only thing that will change that is if the system's sales start tanking or if public demand is SO GREAT that they have to move into getting a new system out.

On a side note, I'm glad we're done with 5-6 year console cycles, I personally hate'em. By the time the really good games start coming out is 2-3 years in, and then the games that truly exploit a system aren't released until the last year or two that the system is viable, with a 10 year life span we'll get 4-5 years of really awesome games, why screw ourselves for the latest and greatest, even the PC market has been seriously hampered by the backlash of people not wanting to drop $1000 every few years to be able to play the best of the best.

40-50% done with this cycle, as I said I hope the heck not, because that is freakin' stupid as far as a educated guess on his part, other than investors and tech/gfx whores, who gives a $#!* about needing to drop big cash on a new system every 3-5 years, not me that's for sure.

And lastly fuck Gabe Newell and Valve, there games are $#!* anyway, Half Life 1/2 bored me to tears, I don't play Team Fortress and LFD, yippee another zombie game, plus I freakin' hate the concept of Steam.

Gabe can get his fat @$$ on the whiny bus with Denis Dyack (of Silicon Knights) and Lorne Lanning and go complain about how pirates, haters and other people are keeping them from doing their super-awesome-neato work and about all the lame things that keep them all from making big money, they're all a bunch of whining pikers if you ask me.

Personally I don't like a single one of their games, already commented on Half-Life, the Oddworld series sucked, Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain was a very dry and boring game, Too Human was broken way before it was released, MGS: Twin Snakes...why??? The only kind thing I'll say about them is Eternal Darkness, which I own, (haven't played much) but I've heard nice things about.

So lastly, I don't expect this article is nothing more than heresay and conjecture at this point, I don't see any new systems rolling out in 2012 (maybe new handhelds, yes), and finally in about 2 years we'll be at the half way mark on the system life cycle for this generation, and I for one couldn't be happier.
 
uncle5555 is right. This console generation is going to last longer than gamers will want it to. The positive of this that the companies will be able to get better specs in the next generation than if the consoles came out in 2012.

You can bet that MS will have a SKU that doesn't have a disc drive at all. Gamers will be able to buy and download any game. They will have a SKU that will support disc games including backward compatibility and/or have an external drive. I think they will finally have built-in wireless.

I'm sure Sony will stick to their Blu-ray guns at least at launch. They will probably have a disc-less version two-three years afterwards.

I hope I'm wrong about the disc-less SKUs, but it's going to happen someday.
 
all they really need to do... what they should have done from the beginning is add more ram... way more to the ps3.... their limit on ram is what holds them back and keeps im in the same class as the xbox360.
 
At this point most developers are on their third or fourth PS3 games. By now they can't use it is too hard to developer for. The PS2 was harder to developer for compare to Xbox, Dreamcast, or Gamecube, but that didnt matter in the end.
 
Didn't Itagaki say that the PS3 was easier to develop for then the original NES and that most developers said the PS3 is easier to develop for then the PS2? But one thing is for sure, if Sony doesn't want to blow billions of dollars, or lose PS3 BC, than the PS4 WILL have a variant of the cell processor. Hell just put 3-6 times the SPES and probably 2-4 standard CPUs.

But this generation is going to be a lot longer then the other ones and I"m glad for that. I hated always upgrading within 4-6 years. I bought mine at around the time Uncharted came out. PS3 has made such huge strides since that time not only games wise but service wise. The interfaces for both PS3 and 360 will keep it more fresh then past ones which were static.
 
No shit they're going to move to a new chip for their next system. The Cell is dead-end tech. IBM is ready to throw in the towel on the entire goddamn architecture and product line, and the only reason they'll keep making them at all is to fulfill the PlayStation contract with Sony. You can keep crying, uncle5555, but Newell was right about Cell. No less than IBM themselves have vindicated him.

Seriously, we're three years in, and there are still people who completely and fully believe the bullshit pre-launch marketing hype about this CPU, and the claims of how it'll stay state-of-the-art for a decade or whatever?

Also, to the people who really don't believe that we'll see another round of consoles for like 5 years or something, please: don't be so naive.

[quote name='SynGamer']Honestly, It makes NO sense to move towards a PC-like architecture. The developers are finally starting to get the hang of programming for the PS3 and it's CELL processor. A next-gen CELL for the PS4 (or even 2 CELL processors that the PS3 currently uses) would be better than throwing in a PC-like CPU. We already know Microsoft is going to use a PC CPU, and the last thing Sony needs to do for next-gen is follow the same path as MS.[/QUOTE]
God damn do you know anything about CPU architecture other than Sony's marketing bullet points?

There will be no "next-gen CELL." The architecture is dead. See above.

[quote name='Paco']Didn't Itagaki say that the PS3 was easier to develop for then the original NES and that most developers said the PS3 is easier to develop for then the PS2?[/quote]
Yes, because Itagaki is known for being so literal and sincere in everything he says.

[quote name='dreamerslost']all they really need to do... what they should have done from the beginning is add more ram... way more to the ps3.... their limit on ram is what holds them back and keeps im in the same class as the xbox360.[/QUOTE]
Uh, the RAM? I think you're forgetting about the shitty 3-going-on-4-generation-old graphics chip. And the ass-backwards CPU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']No shit they're going to move to a new chip for their next system. The Cell is dead-end tech. IBM is ready to throw in the towel on the entire goddamn architecture and product line, and the only reason they'll keep making them at all is to fulfill the PlayStation contract with Sony. You can keep crying, uncle5555, but Newell was right about Cell. No less than IBM themselves have vindicated him.

Seriously, we're three years in, and there are still people who completely and fully believe the bullshit pre-launch marketing hype about this CPU, and the claims of how it'll stay state-of-the-art for a decade or whatever?

Also, to the people who really don't believe that we'll see another round of consoles for like 5 years or something, please: don't be so naive.


God damn do you know anything about CPU architecture other than Sony's marketing bullet points?

There will be no "next-gen CELL." The architecture is dead. See above.


Yes, because Itagaki is known for being so literal and sincere in everything he says.


Uh, the RAM? I think you're forgetting about the shitty 3-going-on-4-generation-old graphics chip. And the ass-backwards CPU.[/QUOTE]

Hey don't go dissing Itagaki words. He's like the crazy relative you wish you had. Now where's my tums? But seriously who really knows if there is any truth in anything he says. But that doesn't mean his words aren't amusing when he's talking about fighter pilots, incest, women, boob physics and whatever else is programmed into his wannabe rock star style.

And I wouldn't say Newell is right. The man hates ALL multi cored cpus and is one of the most ass backwards programmers out there. If it was up to him, we would NEVER see any Dual core or Quad core CPUs and keep trying to go faster in MHZ. The man is talented no doubt about that, but he got so stuck up on single cpu programming that any other type of programming is foreign and scares the shit out of him and he just can't adapt. That is why Carmack will always triumph over Newell. That and the fact that Carmack actually makes games while Newell just sits on his ass and lets the fans make his games. Everything he does is essentially a mod.
 
[quote name='Paco']The man hates ALL multi cored cpus and is one of the most ass backwards programmers out there.[/quote]
Uh, you're referring to the shit he said about multicore back in, like, early 2005? Yeah, that didn't last long. They'd finished implementing multicore support in Source (which was a major step in overhauling the engine, and make no mistake, it is a much more evolved engine than it was when HL2 shipped) barely a year after those comments. Valve on the whole, and Gabe, have since been huge proponents of multicore x86 CPUs. Where have you been?

The man is talented no doubt about that, but he got so stuck up on single cpu programming that any other type of programming is foreign and scares the shit out of him and he just can't adapt. That is why Carmack will always triumph over Newell.
Click to expand...
Okay, now I'm really starting to think that you don't know what you're talking about. Newell and Carmack are not direct personal competitors. Gabe isn't a programmer. He's was never a coder for any of Valve's games. He's in management, dude. Yes, he's technically-minded and absolutely knows what he's talking about, but he doesn't do any actual day-to-day code-writing. Oh, and in case you weren't aware, it's not 1999 anymore, and John Carmack is no longer the king of the graphics programmers or whatever.

That and the fact that Carmack actually makes games while Newell just sits on his ass and lets the fans make his games. Everything he does is essentially a mod.
Click to expand...
You're making me facepalm. A lot. You seem to think that Gabe Newell is like, the sole creative and productive force at Valve. Again: he's in management, not direct game production.
 
[quote name='dastly75']Wait isn't the ps3 on a 10 year plan, maybe we should start speculating later...[/QUOTE]
The same 10 year plan the PS1 and PS2 were on. Five years as the main console and another 5 years as the secondary console.
 
[quote name='Thongsy']The same 10 year plan the PS1 and PS2 were on. Five years as the main console and another 5 years as the secondary console.[/QUOTE]

This this this this THIS. Yeah, Sony hardware tends to have a long tail, but the second half of the tail overlaps the first half of the next system's lifespan. It's ludicrous to think that they'll wait until the thing is a decade old to release a new system.
 
[quote name='Thongsy']The same 10 year plan the PS1 and PS2 were on. Five years as the main console and another 5 years as the secondary console.[/QUOTE]

PS2 to PS3 was a 6 year gap. This generation is bound to be longer based on the ability to update firmware and patch in motion controllers.
 
[quote name='dreamerslost']all they really need to do... what they should have done from the beginning is add more ram... way more to the ps3.... their limit on ram is what holds them back and keeps im in the same class as the xbox360.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but the 256MB of XDR RAM is quite expensive, but it yields much faster performance than regular GDDR3. Looking back, I really wish Sony would have included 512MB GDDR3 for the RSX (and left the CELL with 256MB of XDR RAM). SInce developers can access both memory types, the extra 256MB for the RSX would have really shown off by now.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Uh, you're referring to the shit he said about multicore back in, like, early 2005? Yeah, that didn't last long. They'd finished implementing multicore support in Source (which was a major step in overhauling the engine, and make no mistake, it is a much more evolved engine than it was when HL2 shipped) barely a year after those comments. Valve on the whole, and Gabe, have since been huge proponents of multicore x86 CPUs. Where have you been?


Okay, now I'm really starting to think that you don't know what you're talking about. Newell and Carmack are not direct personal competitors. Gabe isn't a programmer. He's was never a coder for any of Valve's games. He's in management, dude. Yes, he's technically-minded and absolutely knows what he's talking about, but he doesn't do any actual day-to-day code-writing. Oh, and in case you weren't aware, it's not 1999 anymore, and John Carmack is no longer the king of the graphics programmers or whatever.


You're making me facepalm. A lot. You seem to think that Gabe Newell is like, the sole creative and productive force at Valve. Again: he's in management, not direct game production.[/QUOTE]

Actually it was more like like 2005 and despite that overhaul Dual core support was rather wonky on Team Fortress 2 where for some odd reason the damn game would become more unstable if dual core support was enabled. I hear it's still somewhat like that too. And where have I been? Not listening to Gabe Newell for the longest time since anything outside of the x86 lineup scares him.

You're correct in that they were never personal competitors and that Valve isn't the actual man behind everything, but he's the spokesman of Valve for some odd reason and everytime he speaks, he just unleashes hate on anything that isn't x86.

I'd hope not. IN all fairness while I give him a lot of the blame, he does go out of his way to be an obnoxious douche and the fact that he's so fat just makes it so much easier to hate on him. So it does have that iconic feel to him. Plus every time he speaks he manages to make at least someone go like this.

126092638561.jpg


While there is opposite people who agree with him and partake in some trolling and possibly look like this.

Geeseportrait.jpg
 
Actually guys, the PS3 has the same amount of RAM as the 360, 512mb.

The key difference is that the 360 has a single shared pool, while the PS3 has it broken up between two memory banks of different types, but I think you already knew that.

Going back to making it easier on developers. A single shared memory pool is very similar to the PC, it's also much more flexible as the developer decides what data goes where.

I think what you have to realize is that there are very, very few lazy developers. You do not get to be lazy in the games industry, only varying levels of busy. Instead, there are more or less skilled developers. There's only so much high end programming and engineering talent to go around to work around the strange architecture of the PS3.

This is also why there's so many smaller indie games on the 360, besides the marketplace.

It's clear, however, that Sony needs to rethink it's entire process of making consoles, especially the software on those consoles if it wants to stay competitive.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']No shit they're going to move to a new chip for their next system. The Cell is dead-end tech. IBM is ready to throw in the towel on the entire goddamn architecture and product line, and the only reason they'll keep making them at all is to fulfill the PlayStation contract with Sony. You can keep crying, uncle5555, but Newell was right about Cell. No less than IBM themselves have vindicated him.

Seriously, we're three years in, and there are still people who completely and fully believe the bullshit pre-launch marketing hype about this CPU, and the claims of how it'll stay state-of-the-art for a decade or whatever?

Also, to the people who really don't believe that we'll see another round of consoles for like 5 years or something, please: don't be so naive.

God damn do you know anything about CPU architecture other than Sony's marketing bullet points?[/QUOTE]

You do know that the CELL is going to be the platform/foundation for future products right? Oh look-y, a LINK. Amazing what a few seconds of searching can yield ;) They are halting development on a CELL with two PowerPC processors and 32 SPEs, that's it, straight from IBM. IBM still plans on developing the CELL 'family' for future processors.

If you know ANYTHING about business you would know that if you've invested 100's of millions of $'s into something, you don't just abandon it.

As for Valve, any developer who uses the excuse that something is too hard to develop for is just spewing bullshit. You're a developer, learn or get left behind. Isn't that the point of developing (for good programmers at least), to learn new techniques/ways?
 
[quote name='SynGamer']You do know that the CELL is going to be the platform/foundation for future products right? Oh look-y, a LINK. Amazing what a few seconds of searching can yield ;)[/quote]
Uh, sorry, but I'm going to take the direct, on-the-record word of David Turek in interview, over that of an unnamed "spokesperson" in response to an e-mail or whatever. Sure, plenty of that research will live on and go on to evolve into something else. Naturally. But this architecture is dead, and they aren't going to try anything else like it for mainstream computing for quite some time, I imagine. Yeah, supercomputing sounds really cool and all, but frankly, it's useless for mainstream computing and gaming.

If you know ANYTHING about business you would know that if you've invested 100's of millions of $'s into something, you don't just abandon it.
Click to expand...
Yes, because there have never been any expensive money pit failures, resulting in axing projects to cut losses, in corporate history, ever! :roll:

[quote name='SynGamer']As for Valve, any developer who uses the excuse that something is too hard to develop for is just spewing bullshit. You're a developer, learn or get left behind. Isn't that the point of developing (for good programmers at least), to learn new techniques/ways?[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between saying that something is too difficult to develop for, period, end of story, and saying that it something is too difficult to develop for, for it to be worth the company's time, resources, and investment (which is what Gabe did). He wasn't worried about his company being "left behind;" he was lamenting that their system is too much of a pain in the ass for them to serve it's customers.

You're correct in that they were never personal competitors and that Valve isn't the actual man behind everything, but he's the spokesman of Valve for some odd reason and everytime he speaks, he just unleashes hate on anything that isn't x86.
Click to expand...
Repeatedly referring to Gabe Newell as a "programmer" requires better damage control than this. You could at least google his company title. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']You repeatedly referring to Gabe Newell as a "programmer" requires better damage control than this. You could at least google his company title.[/QUOTE]

Unlike most, I know that he's the managing director, and as a result, he basically controls what Valve does. As a result, everything he says can pretty much be taken as the word of law for what Valve does and doesn't do. So when I refer to 'programmer' I'm actually referring to the people developing the games. It's just unfortunate that Newell basically has the final say in developing on the PS3 because'he' feels it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Basically, he's saying that he either 1. doesn't think it will be economically viable (which is bullshit considering the PS3 userbase is well over 25 million now, so even if only 4% of the total PS3 userbase buys his games, they are still selling 1,000,000 copies, that should definitely offset the cost to make the game versus profits.) or 2. he feels that his programmers aren't up to the task/challenge of developing on the PS3...which I'm hoping isn't the case.

The point of a corporation is to maximize profits. As I said, if even 4% of the PS3 userbase were to buy Valve games (and let's be honest, PS3 games are itching to play some Left 4 Dead 2, I know I am), that's 1 million copies sold. I highly doubt Left 4 Dead 2 cost more than $10 million to make, so the sales on the 360 should have already turned a profit. From a business sense, developing on the PS3 should have been a priority as soon as console broke 20 million units shipped.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Unlike most, I know that he's the managing director, and as a result, he basically controls what Valve does. As a result, everything he says can pretty much be taken as the word of law for what Valve does and doesn't do. So when I refer to 'programmer' I'm actually referring to the people developing the games. It's just unfortunate that Newell basically has the final say in developing on the PS3 because'he' feels it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Basically, he's saying that he either 1. doesn't think it will be economically viable (which is bullshit considering the PS3 userbase is well over 25 million now, so even if only 4% of the total PS3 userbase buys his games, they are still selling 1,000,000 copies, that should definitely offset the cost to make the game versus profits.) or 2. he feels that his programmers aren't up to the task/challenge of developing on the PS3...which I'm hoping isn't the case.[/quote]

The simple response is this: Valve does what the fuck they want and doesn't afraid of anything. And ultimately, people whining about Valve games being on 360 and not being on PS3 is so stupid anyways. I cannot imagine playing L4D or TF2 on a fucking gamepad, or being matched mostly against people who are using them. As someone who owns every single game Valve has ever made, for PC, that is an ghastly thought.

I highly doubt Left 4 Dead 2 cost more than $10 million to make,
Click to expand...
Uh, the ad campaign alone cost 2.5 times that much.
 
the ps3 has maybe 3 or 4 good games...and we're already talking about the next console? come on man....let's max out what we have first and crank out some AAA titles.
 
If Sony transitions to another console in a few years, the PS3 is NOT going to receive the same software support as the PSOne/PS2 did, and it is for one simple reason:

User base, the PS2 as of right now is hitting near the 140 million mark, that is a damn good enough reason for third parties to carry it on. The only console that will get close to touching that is the Wii and if history serves me right, it is always the market leader console that continues well past its prime in a modern market.

But to be real honest, I'm not sure when the next consoles will come around. I want to say 2011/2012 but I do wonder. One thing is for damn sure, if Microsoft and Sony want the casual market (and they do), they better keep the price below $300 or they will lose for another consecutive generation, because we know Nintendo sure as hell will.

Which is in my opinion, is very bright. At this point, we're starting to see deminishing returns on graphics (IE: The jump is not nearly as big as what it seems) and the general consumer market is not as easily pleased anymore in that department. Spending ludcrious amounts of money and then producing a console that will cost out of range for the mainstream market willl only usher in a permanent state of "second and third" place. You can be profitable in that state, but I firmly believe MS and Sony do not want that, so I'm not expecting expensive consoles the second time around.
 
[quote name='gsr']the ps3 has maybe 3 or 4 good games...and we're already talking about the next console? come on man....let's max out what we have first and crank out some AAA titles.[/QUOTE]"3 or 4" :rofl:

[quote name='gsr']and fix the fuckin online interface while you're at it...because it is HORRIBLE.[/QUOTE]Mine elaborating?

Also, when do you plan on getting your FIRST PS3?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gsr']the 360 has maybe 3 or 4 good games...and we're already talking about the next console? come on man....let's max out what we have first and crank out some AAA titles.[/QUOTE]

Quit talking about the 360 bruh. It makes it look bad. ;)
 
I was listening to a podcast and they were talking about options for the PS4, and one of the options was that Sony could use two cell chips and have them work together as one unit... which is very much possible as its easy for the chips to work together like that. Then add some more ram. sony needs to keep the same chips imo... its cheaper and you can still get a lot out of it. But.. the main thing is that you have to give the Developers the tools that they want.
 
The 360 is at the peak of its technology and it would be nessisary for a next gen for them to do any higher quality games, they probably would integrate Natal and that would be the end of it.

With the Ps2 and ps1, there best slew of games came at the end of its expected life span FF12, Persona 4, metal gear 3, when developers knew how to best utilize there current tech, The next gen xbox will be about similar to the ps3 at the end of its life span and will follow a similar trend with how 360 games sucked when in the begining there where a ton of awesome ps2 games
 
The fact is that you need two different compilers (PPU/SPU), two incompatible instructions sets, and two incompatible sets of intrinsics to build software for a single CPU, with a single main core! Sure, you can argue all day that this is necessary because the architecture of the Cell is so radically different and talk about possibilities for optimal parallel execution across the 5 spus
This is extremely challenging, expensive, and not something a studio really wants to be spending money on. When you can make an excellent game on an XBox 360 for a fraction of the development cost why would you ever lead on the PS3? The answer is, you wouldn't and extremely few studios have. You build the game for the 360 ship it and the port to the PS3 and do the best you can.
 
Developers were forced to develop for the PS2 because there simply wasnt any real alternative. The installed user base was massive - games *had* to be done for the PS2. But Sonys tools & support was almost archaic. It was a software engineers nightmare. Contrast this with Microsoft - a company coming from a software background. Their tool support and API shames Sony - its simply fantastic.

Sony made the classic mistake of believing their own hype, and as a software engineer in the games industry I really relish their downfall with glee Good riddance to awful rubbish. Come back in a few years maybe when you understand what API means.
 
[quote name='LordKefka06']"3 or 4" :rofl:

Mine elaborating?

Also, when do you plan on getting your FIRST PS3?[/QUOTE]

lol, i have a ps3 son.

list the good games, son.

uncharted, ratchet, little big planet..everything else is cross platform

i can't send voice messages. I can't quickly invite friends to games. I can't run a private party that allows me to mute the GP. Does that narrow it down for you?
 
[quote name='gsr']lol, i have a ps3 son.

list the good games, son.

uncharted, ratchet, little big planet..everything else is cross platform

i can't send voice messages. I can't quickly invite friends to games. I can't run a private party that allows me to mute the GP. Does that narrow it down for you?[/QUOTE]

So i guess you are the end-all-be-all source of what constitutes "good games" on the PS3 (exclusives). :roll:

Feel free to get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']So i guess you are the end-all-be-all source of what constitutes "good games" on the PS3 (exclusives). :roll:

Feel free to get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.[/QUOTE]

I'm wondering what his metric is in this case. His own opinion? Metacritic? Gamerankings? Some combination of both?

Also, Valkyria Chronicles and Disgaea 3 gave me a heck of a lot of great fun, and I believe those are exclusives (not really sure why everyone is so hung up on exclusives though, considering the PS3 and 360 do share about 90% of their libraries, so it's not like either console is bursting at the seams with exclusives).

Is the invite process also a lot more complicated than I've found it to be? PS button, go to Friends bar, Triangle over my friend's name, hit Invite. That's worked for me for the few games in which I cared to do it (RE5, LBP namely) and, I suppose unless you're suffering from rather intense arthritis, relatively painless/quick.
 
The Cell has been dead since its invention.

When you make something that expensive and that grossly invested and only one company (Sony) can use it, that's marking it's death... It should be cheap as hell, and that's a lie because it isn't!!

Just look at Apple and the Mac... why did they switch over to Intel... cheaper... bigger profits because their margin is lower now. Making a G6 would be too much to invest, and only Apple using it?! Crazy!


Probably one of many reasons there was a $600 console at launch.
 
[quote name='dsrtstorm']This thread sucks. With all the fanboying going around in here it's starting to remind me of the Kotaku comment section.[/QUOTE]

Read some of Amazon's video game system reviews if you REALLY want to lose faith in humanity. I was going to (partly) buy my brother a Wii system for Christmas as he loves a few of the classic-type games and I saw some of the great minds of our generation weigh in on the eternal video game debate. The big three consoles this gen have some great 1 and 2 star ratings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gsr']lol, i have a ps3 son.

list the good games, son.

uncharted, ratchet, little big planet..everything else is cross platform

i can't send voice messages. I can't quickly invite friends to games. I can't run a private party that allows me to mute the GP. Does that narrow it down for you?[/QUOTE]


What does the 360 have that wasn't on PC? I think it was just Halo 3. Everything else is shared on the PC or WILL be shared on the PC eventually.
 
list the good games, son.

uncharted, ratchet, little big planet..everything else is cross platform
Click to expand...
:rofl: Wow, you must hate this current gaming gen. How many games have you played this gen, 4/5?

i can't send voice messages. I can't quickly invite friends to games. I can't run a private party that allows me to mute the GP. Does that narrow it down for you?
Click to expand...
How does the lack of those features make the interface/dashboard "HORRIBLE"?

What do you mean you can't send out invites quickly. If you're talking under 4 seconds, then yes.

-----

Wasn't there talk about cross game voice chat coming to the PS3?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='LordKefka06']Wasn't there talk about cross game voice chat coming to the PS3?[/QUOTE]

Yes, with the possibility of it being available to PS3 owners who pay for "premium" service -- although this too was just a rumor/customer survey.
 
[quote name='xycury']The Cell has been dead since its invention.

When you make something that expensive and that grossly invested and only one company (Sony) can use it, that's marking it's death... It should be cheap as hell, and that's a lie because it isn't!!

Just look at Apple and the Mac... why did they switch over to Intel... cheaper... bigger profits because their margin is lower now. Making a G6 would be too much to invest, and only Apple using it?! Crazy!

Probably one of many reasons there was a $600 console at launch.[/QUOTE]

Sony uses it in the PS3, Toshiba in their HDTVs, and IBM in some of their servers...I just wanted to point out that more than one company is using the CELL processor.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Sony uses it in the PS3, Toshiba in their HDTVs, and IBM in some of their servers...I just wanted to point out that more than one company is using the CELL processor.[/QUOTE]

you got the military using the PS3 due to its cell, and the medical researchers were using it for the "folding at home program" The issue isn't the chip, Sony needs to do something to make it easier for the developers. Even if Sony does decide to move away from the cell processor, before long we'll end up seeing another system using a simliar type chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top