PS3 the "official" industry leader?

[footle]

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

Sony: Our Hardware sorts the Development Men from the Development Boys.

Sony: If you can't use our hardware, it's your fault for being thick.

Sony: We have a ten year plan, because our tools are shit and no-one will be able to actually program our console properly until at least eight years have passed and they've all been rewritten three or four times.

Why not just require modern AAA games to be entirely written in assembler as part of your certification, Kaz?

[Smitty]

Well, quite. Harder/more-powerful is preferable to easy/less-powerful, but not to easy/more powerful.

Of course. The PS3 being difficult to tame doesn't benefit anyone. But it is entirely possible that being difficult to program for is in the nature of the hardware and as such unavoidable.

*edit*

Or it could be a combination of that and the tools that are available.

[Eighthours]

I mean, PS3 visuals have been better on some titles

And worse on most.

[RubberJohnny]

But with the PS3 being the way it is, you may have to, that's the point.

Right. So you're just saying that you like pretty graphics and that the PS3 has the prettiest graphics. That's fine. Kaz could have just come out and said that the PS3 is the most powerful, and that'd be fine.

He didn't. He talked about how hardware design that makes it harder to program software for the console is better than hardware that makes it easier to program for the console, because you get to wait for the best graphics ten years from now, rather than just getting them now. That's not fine, that's stupid.

But it is entirely possible that being difficult to program for is in the nature of the hardware and as such unavoidable.

Computers don't work that way. This is down to Sony being a hardware company, and Nintendo and Microsoft being primarily software focused.

[AK Bell]

For multi-format, people are still have trouble getting the PS3 up to the speed and visuals of the 360 version. Things are improving, but a lot of folk are starting to think that it's not even worth it the extra effort and cost to make the PS3 version.

[Matteo]

The problem with Sony is that they seem to be fighing the last generation console war, not the current one. Yes the PS2 did great, but people are not going to wait for Playstation games anymore....if they come out on xbox first.

[Smitty]

And worse on most.

Yeah, and i've made that point many times myself. But i'm talking about their exclusives, and specifically the ones where they've achieved superior visuals, obviously.

[Smitty]

Right. So you're just saying that you like pretty graphics and that the PS3 has the prettiest graphics. That's fine. Kaz could have just come out and said that the PS3 is the most powerful, and that'd be fine.

He didn't. He talked about how hardware design that makes it harder to program software for the console is better than hardware that makes it easier to program for the console, because you get to wait for the best graphics ten years from now, rather than just getting them now. That's not fine, that's stupid.

Computers don't work that way. This is down to Sony being a hardware company, and Nintendo and Microsoft being primarily software focused.

You'll notice I said there was a lot of bollocks in there, right?

And I don't doubt that at least some of the problem in producing visuals that outclass what the 360 can do, has been down to tools. We know this, some devs have pointed out how brilliant the 360 tools that MS provides are in comparison.

[RubberJohnny]

And I don't doubt that at least some of the problem in producing visuals that outclass what the 360 can do, has been down to tools. We know this, some devs have pointed out how brilliant the 360 tools that MS provides are in comparison.

But why are you still arguing this when you're not even agreeing with anything he says? He's talking about having artificial progression in graphics being an advantage. You're off on some 360 vs PS3 graphical thing that the article doesn't mention, and no-one is debating. Can't we just go back to picking apart the bullshit and posting SonyLOL?

[SeanR]

So, what do we need to do to get him sectioned?

[Spacehost]

You're off on some 360 vs PS3 graphical thing that the article doesn't mention, and no-one is debating.

So it's a kind of - I wouldn't say a double-edged sword - but it's hard to program for, and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer,"

I think that could be taken as implying that the PS3 has more to offer than the 360, or that the PS3 of the future will offer games with more impressive graphics than the PS3 of today. So Smitty may have a point.

[AK Bell]

It's not just about pretty graphics. How about... the slow-arse blu-ray, segregated specific use memory, lack of hardware screen scaling (why if set wrong, your TV gets nothing), a focus just on whacking out visuals that makes it hard to improve stuff like physics and AI ...and then ironically a GPU that bottlenecks any improvement the many cores make.

[Parappa]

As this was published in an official Sony publication, when times are looking so hard for the company as a whole, and the finger is been pointed firmly at the games division, would you expect him to say anything else?

Damage limitation springs to mind here. Keep it sweet by any means neccesary as long as you can....

[RubberJohnny]

I think that could be taken as implying that the PS3 has more to offer than the 360, or that the PS3 of the future will offer games with more impressive graphics than the PS3 of today. So Smitty may have a point.

But that assumes that anyone is disputing that the PS3 has more to offer than the 360, which they're not, or artificial longevity in graphical achievement is an advantage over having it all at once, which Smitty already agreed is not. The PS3 could have had an architecture like the 360 and be having those 7 1/2 year away graphics now, so the statements saying that the way it is at the moment is better are stupid, from both a developer and gamer perspective.

They're not as funny as Sony having a complete absence of statistics that they can claim that they're #1 in, and so coming up with a default honorary title, though. SONYLOL

[Spacehost]

The PS3 could have had an architecture like the 360 and be having those 7 1/2 year away graphics now,

Want to explain that in more detail? What changes to the architecture are you proposing?

Edit- personally I think 90% of the issues that seem to crop up between PS3 and 360 versions of the same game happen because Sony's dev tools aren't up to scratch.

[RubberJohnny]

Sorry I killed the thread

I just felt Smitty was going on some crusade that wasn't related to the thread, but was trying to shoehorn it in anyway.

Want to explain that in more detail? What changes to the architecture are you proposing?

Have it made by a company that understands what developers want in terms of hardware? The Xbox360s innards are rather similar to PCs, for example, that familiarity is good for developers. The PS3 uses a crazy architecture that requires knowledge that can't be gained by working on any other machine, or can't be applied to work on any other machine.

I remember an interview with Gabe Newell before the PS3s release where he claimed Cells overcomplexity was to lock developers to the PS3, Sony believed they had guaranteed success and so developers would learn the PS3s architecture and then have a difficult time porting to any competitors system, their previous successes guaranteeing their monopoly.

[Spacehost]

Anyway- fuck the official leader, get thine arse in gear Sony and cut the price. No one gives a cap how big the HDD is any more, just get it down to the magic £200 mark.

[Boyatsea]

As this was published in an official Sony publication, when times are looking so hard for the company as a whole, and the finger is been pointed firmly at the games division, would you expect him to say anything else?

Damage limitation springs to mind here. Keep it sweet by any means neccesary as long as you can....

It's an attempt at damage limitation, yes, but a poor one.

Sony really miss Harrison at times like this. He was a master at interviews, and would very rarely even mention the competition when questioned directly about them. Acknowledging the competition, even if it's an attempt to dismiss them, like Hirai has attempted here, is a weakness, and it shows you're actually very worried.

This was Hirai trying to rouse the 'party faithful', but it actually reads like the captain of a sinking ship panicking.

[Smitty]

But that assumes that anyone is disputing that the PS3 has more to offer than the 360, which they're not, or artificial longevity in graphical achievement is an advantage over having it all at once, which Smitty already agreed is not. The PS3 could have had an architecture like the 360 and be having those 7 1/2 year away graphics now, so the statements saying that the way it is at the moment is better are stupid, from both a developer and gamer perspective.

They're not as funny as Sony having a complete absence of statistics that they can claim that they're #1 in, and so coming up with a default honorary title, though. SONYLOL

For the third time, I said there was a lot of bollocks in there.

And i've already said that this progression in visuals taking time really benefits no-one, but it could be the flip side of having markedly better visuals over a longer time frame. My point is that Kaz is right when he says that it is a double-edged sword, the programming difficulty, and that whilst it might take longer, the advantage is that the hardware is ultimately capable of much more.

I think that's a worthwhile pay off, personally. I think the advantages weigh out the disadvantages, from the pure perspective of a somebody wanting improved visuals and progress in technical sophistication.

So Smitty may have a point.

Yeah, and I thought it was pretty clear.

[BeeJay]

It's an attempt at damage limitation, yes, but a poor one.

Sony really miss Harrison at times like this. He was a master at interviews, and would very rarely even mention the competition when questioned directly about them. Acknowledging the competition, even if it's an attempt to dismiss them, like Hirai has attempted here, is a weakness, and it shows you're actually very worried.

This was Hirai trying to rouse the 'party faithful', but it actually reads like the captain of a sinking ship panicking.

I think someone needs to post the Iraqi defence minister jpeg.

[T Pot]

and we operate in our world - that's the kind of way I look at things.

lol yup! Sony IS the industry leader.... In their own little world

[Troublegum]

[Zathras]

What do people expect him to say?

I don't think he says anything particularly outlandish unless you're deliberately looking to misinterpret things for "SonyLOL"s.

I think saying nothing would have been best.

[Harsin]

I think someone needs to post the Iraqi defence minister jpeg.

Nicked from elsewhere.

[macosx]

All that bluster smacks of trying to shore up consumer confidence and I agree, damage limitation.

Hirai - I am the king of me.

[Yoshimax]

Brilliant article.

[RubberJohnny]

And i've already said that this progression in visuals taking time really benefits no-one, but it could be the flip side of having markedly better visuals over a longer time frame. My point is that Kaz is right when he says that it is a double-edged sword, the programming difficulty, and that whilst it might take longer, the advantage is that the hardware is ultimately capable of much more.

But that's daft again. You seem to be arguing that having a complex architecture = more power, rather than what's put into the box = power, and the architecture = how fast you can fully use that power. Having a complex architecture doesn't voodoo more power beyond the components that were used when the specs were finalised and the box was designed 5 years ago. Those components don't increase in power either.

That's the thing, there's no advantages in having a harder to use architecture, unless you particularly like waiting for developers to be able to make better graphics rather than have them now. There's an advantage in having more powerful components in your box, sure* A PS3 powered console with 360 architecture would be doubly advantageous, a 360 with PS3 architecture would be doubly disadvantageous.

*Not getting into this right now

[robdood]

Indeed. It's kinda like how there are graphics cards available which are far more powerful (on paper) than the current top end nVidia/ATi stuff, but because of how they're made they can't run games for shit. But they are way better for art apps. More grunt (especially custom made, freaky stuff that people have never used before) doesn't always mean it's going to be worth using. Especially when you need to get games out, looking decent, pretty quickly for as small a cost as possible.

[MK-1601]

It's just mindblowing the arrogance of this cunt

Haha, NERD RAGE

...

I think that designing consoles to have as much potential for future growth as possible is a good strategy, but Hirai has phrased this horribly badly. The PS2 didn't get games like SOTC and GOW until later in it's life because these were using techniques that didn't exist five years earlier. It wasn't just because the PS2 was a bitch to program for. I think the same is true to an extent with the PS3.

The implied alternative is to have a design that optimises specific effects, which dates much more quickly. I guess an example would be the GC and Xbox1's hardware bumpmapping, which proved too inflexible to be used much. (Crap analogy ahoy!) Trying to overspecify is like asking a ten year old what he wants for each Christmas over the next ten years.

Therefore:

The PS3 could have had an architecture like the 360 and be having those 7 1/2 year away graphics now

... is not how it works. Also:

The Xbox360s innards are rather similar to PCs, for example, that familiarity is good for developers. The PS3 uses a crazy architecture that requires knowledge that can't be gained by working on any other machine, or can't be applied to work on any other machine.

This is a bit like 16-bit developers whining about having to learn how 3D works. Making things familiar becomes limiting beyond a certain point.

That "crazy architecture" is basically how all CPUs are going to work over the next few years, it's not dramatically bucking the wider trend like the PS2's architecture. (I've noticed some posts seem to conflate the criticisms made of the PS2's architecture directly to the PS3. The machines, and the standard of tools/libraries accompanying them, are very different.)

[Smitty]

That's the thing, there's no advantages in having a harder to use architecture

Unless the hardware nature of the hardware is part of the reason it is harder to programme for, and the countering advantage to that is that the hardware will eventually be able to produce far more impressive visuals than the competitors hardware, over the longer timeframe.

The PS3 is already producing visuals that I doubt could be done on the 360 to the same level, see Killzone 2 as an example.