Ubisoft Looking Forward To A New Console Generation
See Full ImageMost developers have been pretty adamant: "No, we don't want any new consoles just yet."
But one publisher thinks we need a new round of consoles soon, because innovation and originality is starting to go out the window. In speaking to MCV, Ubisoft co-founder and CEO Yves Guillemot claims there just isn't "enough creativity" at the end of a console's life cycle:
"Consumers like the current formats, but there is not enough creativity at the end of a cycle to really spark the business. If we look at the industry’s history we see that there are times when it is right to introduce new IP and times when it is harder. At this stage in the consoles’ life cycles it is possible to do new IP, but it will be more attractive when new consoles come along. That’s when consumers are more open to trying new things."
On top of which, Guillemot believes that even those developers who don't want the next generation to happen too soon will benefit: "They can try new things because the consumer expects and wants new things." Well, that may be true, but isn't it also true that it takes a developer time to come to terms with new hardware, especially where PlayStation is concerned?
At any rate, Microsoft and Nintendo will likely grant Ubisoft's wish long before Sony.
Tags: ubisoft, ps4, playstation 4, games industry
4/12/2011 8:35:10 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (86 posts)
BikerSaint
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:13:18 PM
(I meant consoles, not AC4,5,6,7,8,9,10 in the next year)
Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/12/2011 10:14:19 PM
Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/12/2011 10:14:19 PM
16 up, 0 down
Cesar_ser_4
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:31:40 PM
you really think ubisoft maxed out the ps3?
0 up, 3 down
Highlander
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 11:49:58 PM
No, that's pretty much the opposite of what he's saying.
1 up, 0 down
Kiryu
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 9:51:31 PM
Reply
Ubisoft means that they want Microsoft and Nintendo to catch to the PS3 in the Next Generation!
6 up, 0 down
Dancemachine55
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 8:23:40 AM
My thoughts exactly.
The Wii in particular is a LOOOOOOOONG way behind the competiton, now that MS has Kinect and Sony has Move.
BTW, I finally got a Move yesterday, and Heavy Rain is un-freakin-believable with it!!! Playing with a Move controller just makes so much sense with a game like that!!!
Dead Space Extraction too is far more enjoyable with a Move than a controller!
The Wii in particular is a LOOOOOOOONG way behind the competiton, now that MS has Kinect and Sony has Move.
BTW, I finally got a Move yesterday, and Heavy Rain is un-freakin-believable with it!!! Playing with a Move controller just makes so much sense with a game like that!!!
Dead Space Extraction too is far more enjoyable with a Move than a controller!
2 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:47:12 AM
Indeed. The biggest problem with this generation is the 360 and the US population that keep buying it.
6 up, 2 down
SvenMD
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 11:48:50 AM
Yeah I played 10 minutes of Dead Space Extraction and then realized that I need a Move before I actually try to tackle that game!
1 up, 0 down
JMO_INDY
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 5:10:32 PM
The US isn't the only country that still buys that POS, wake up and grow up MaxPontiac, it still has a strong place in Europe as well.
1 up, 3 down
BTNwarrior
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 9:57:04 PM
Reply
well I have one good thing that could come out of new consoles releasing sooner. If there was a new generation of consoles released I doubt that activision could get away with still using the COD2 engine
2 up, 0 down
cLoudou
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:04:22 PM
Reply
Why are they looking forward to the next gen? They barely even done anything this gen.
14 up, 1 down
frylock25
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:04:56 PM
Reply
what a load of crap. make a new ip, make it a good game. people will buy it. dont release it early either. if it needs time to get rid of bugs and glitches and polish it then do that.
seriously what the hell is wrong with them?!?! i want new stuff all the time!! oh wait here we go morons, sony has a new system comin out... support that. flood it with "new ip's" all you want. its new and people will want new stuff. so there it is every one because its new and people will want new stuff we will get new ips on the ngp.
at this stage in the consoles life i want to see great games! i dont care if it is a new ip or sequal. hell it could be a reboot of an old game for all i care.
seriously what the hell is wrong with them?!?! i want new stuff all the time!! oh wait here we go morons, sony has a new system comin out... support that. flood it with "new ip's" all you want. its new and people will want new stuff. so there it is every one because its new and people will want new stuff we will get new ips on the ngp.
at this stage in the consoles life i want to see great games! i dont care if it is a new ip or sequal. hell it could be a reboot of an old game for all i care.
9 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:17:46 PM
Reply
In other words, they're tired of scaling down multi-plats to the lowest common denominator.
What? STFU! I'll believe blindly what I want to believe!
Healthy gamble though...
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/12/2011 10:18:03 PM
What? STFU! I'll believe blindly what I want to believe!
Healthy gamble though...
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/12/2011 10:18:03 PM
3 up, 0 down
JMO_INDY
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:19:54 PM
Reply
They're saying this because they're not creating anything original beyond AC for this gen and they feel left out. I don't believe with games (epic games at that) coming out in the next couple of months and later this year, such as Uncharted 2 and inFamous 2 just to name a couple. I'd say this gen isn't out of the race yet (well at least not the PS3). Though a new console batch would be cool; from a technical standpoint and spec POV, I think I can hold out for a few more years.
4 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:21:13 PM
Reply
I have a hard time buying his point. Devs can be very creative still. It sounds to me that he's scared to make a move on a new IP without new hardware to propagate it.
Sort of like the proverbial " self fullfilled prophecy".
Sort of like the proverbial " self fullfilled prophecy".
2 up, 0 down
The X Factor 9
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:27:56 PM
Reply
I'm looking forward to seeing UbiSoft make a few more good games THIS generation before I'm even remotely interested in investing in new gaming hardware.
2 up, 0 down
kraygen
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:31:05 PM
Reply
Ubisofts way of saying that they have no idea's and they need an excuse. What does console generation have to do with being creative? You have some fresh idea's ubisoft? Well let's see them, because from what I'm seeing, you just don't have much to offer.
10 up, 0 down
shadowscorpio
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:24:42 AM
Yup. When a dev wants to hide behind a band new console released into the industry, they say its "needed in order to inspire creaivity". What a load. Until the majority of devs are saying the same, we will keep what is here right now thank you.
3 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:49:43 AM
I also believe it's because of the DVD size limitations.
1 up, 1 down
PasteNuggs
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:32:53 PM
Reply
Uhh, I don't think them saying that starting a new IP at the end of console generation is a legit excuse. If I'm not mistaken, most series just continue on too the next generation and just get better.
3 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:41:15 PM
Reply
Eeyea....learn to code properly for this gen consoles first Ubisoft.
11 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:45:22 PM
Reply
Nonsense at every level. I'm sorry your games are stuck on DVDs on a stripped down PC in plastic but you could run wild on PS3 if you dumbsh*ts really wanted to be creative.
And no, when a new console generation comes out people are very afraid to spend even more money on the gamble that a new IP will be worth the money because they just spent a ton so they are more likely to get sequels to existing franchises until the tech is fully grasped.
And no, when a new console generation comes out people are very afraid to spend even more money on the gamble that a new IP will be worth the money because they just spent a ton so they are more likely to get sequels to existing franchises until the tech is fully grasped.
9 up, 1 down
Bloodysilence19
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:49:13 PM
Reply
the hardware in next gen consoles are fine. there are some points do need some upgrades. ms does need to get rid of that dvd crap and either make agreement to use blu ray or start using dual layer dvd just to have more space than 9gb. sony doesn't need to change much either their cpu is actually good they just need a upgrade of the gpu so we could really see top notch visuals like how some pc games are. ubisoft i think is saying this cause their games are just becoming sequels rather than a new ip. 360 got year left till ms needs a new console, ps3 got 2-3 years tops till a new sony console, and Nintendo they just need hd console already, so i can see Nintendo teasing a new console this year at e3.
Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 4/12/2011 10:51:28 PM
Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 4/12/2011 10:51:28 PM
2 up, 0 down
tridon
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 10:54:55 PM
Reply
Oh, yeah... because they've done so much this generation. All that comes to mind is an over-abundance of Assassin's Creed titles, some PoP games, a crappy Splinter Cell and an exclusive-to-M$ Splinter Cell, a bunch of HD remakes and a Michael Jackson game. I'm probably missing some but really, I'm doubting that they need a new set of consoles already. Hey, Ubisoft, crazy idea... rather than spending your time worrying about the next generation of consoles, why don't you develop Beyond Good & Evil 2 instead?
3 up, 0 down
FM23
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 11:21:19 PM
So true, Ubisoft is known for AC and nothing more nowadays.
2 up, 0 down
Dancemachine55
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 8:43:26 AM
Hang on people, you're being a little naive here.
Ubisoft is quite massive really. Sure, most only think of Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed when you say Ubisoft, but they're even bigger in the casual gaming department.
1. Assasson's Creed
2. Splinter Cell
3. Prince of Persia
4. Ghost Recon
5. Farcry
6. Just Dance (Wii)
7. Michael Jackson: The Experience
8. Rocksmith
9. Shaun White
10. Driver: San Francisco
11. H.A.W.X.
12. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
13. The Imagine Series (DS)
14. Red Steel
15. No More Heroes
16. Avatar
17. Raving Rabbids
So Ubisoft, before you go mouthing off and asking for a new generation of consoles, how bout trying something new with the current gen consoles other than Assassin's Creed and Farcry? Everything else you do is tied to a certain person or brand, eg. Tom Clancy, Michael Jackson and films.
Ubisoft is quite massive really. Sure, most only think of Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed when you say Ubisoft, but they're even bigger in the casual gaming department.
1. Assasson's Creed
2. Splinter Cell
3. Prince of Persia
4. Ghost Recon
5. Farcry
6. Just Dance (Wii)
7. Michael Jackson: The Experience
8. Rocksmith
9. Shaun White
10. Driver: San Francisco
11. H.A.W.X.
12. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
13. The Imagine Series (DS)
14. Red Steel
15. No More Heroes
16. Avatar
17. Raving Rabbids
So Ubisoft, before you go mouthing off and asking for a new generation of consoles, how bout trying something new with the current gen consoles other than Assassin's Creed and Farcry? Everything else you do is tied to a certain person or brand, eg. Tom Clancy, Michael Jackson and films.
4 up, 0 down
___________
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:45:48 AM
dont forget rainbow six.
loved vegas, not so much vegas 2.
wish ubisoft would hurry up and announce a new rainbow six game!
speaking of driver SF, ben you seen anything on it?
xplay says its coming out this month, but we have seen almost nothing about it since its reveal last year!
i swear to god the worlds going to end if this gets canned too!
Last edited by ___________ on 4/13/2011 9:50:13 AM
loved vegas, not so much vegas 2.
wish ubisoft would hurry up and announce a new rainbow six game!
speaking of driver SF, ben you seen anything on it?
xplay says its coming out this month, but we have seen almost nothing about it since its reveal last year!
i swear to god the worlds going to end if this gets canned too!
Last edited by ___________ on 4/13/2011 9:50:13 AM
3 up, 0 down
FxTales
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 11:15:05 PM
Reply
Remember in the south park movie when Terrance slapped Brooke Shields in the face? Someone needs to slap Ubisoft.
1 up, 1 down
Kiryu
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 11:57:32 PM
Reply
Ubisoft y can't u make a PS3 Exclusive like Rockstar and Sucker Punch to keep up with Games like Infamous 2 which surpass current games Open World in every Way!
2 up, 0 down
Qubex
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 12:33:36 AM
Reply
As many of you have expressed herein, I think UbiSoft is jumping the gun. Whilst I understand that UbiSoft may have some "frustrations" developing for consoles such as the 360 and Wii, the PS3 is just hitting its stride now.
I think games like Uncharted 3 will show developers what can be done if the right programming and optimisation techniques are employed and used on the PS3. No doubts it is getting more and more difficult to squeeze juice out of our black baby, but she still has some go in her, and this years line up of exclusives will show this.
UbiSoft (and to some extent, other 3rd party developers), may feel similar that the cost of developing titles for 360 and PS3 separately is just to difficult to bare, they have to combine development as we have seen throughout this gen - and therefore may feel frustrated that they cannot get the best out of the said target platforms.
Needless to say, having spent about half a day trawling through many of Digital Foundry's Face Off articles (comparing technical differences between the 360 and PS3), its overwhelmingly evident that the PS3 has come out second best most of the time thanks to non-exclusive development cost and time constraints. Multi-platform technologies and aging engines have not helped the matter. Yes, the PS3 exclusives do shine, for the most part, but at a bit of stretched.
The Sony exclusive tech has improved over this life cycle, with the only exception of having to endure poor shadow casting affects for both exclusive and non-exclusive games (some games do a better job than others) - a testament to the huge calculation overheads required that our hyped super HD next generation consoles where supposed to have handled with ease - but that is for another time to discuss...
The question of 3D may also, in part, be on the minds of UbiSoft executives. They may be looking at film worlds presented in motion pictures such as Avatar; they may want to create experiences closer to this for gamers in proper 3D HD (for each eye) - they know too well, as we do, that the current crop of 3D titles are more of a "try and see if it can be done to any great effect" situation. A situation where Sony and M$ in particular want to extend the life cycle of these aging units as far as possible into the future, but at the same time selling us a cheapish derivative of what true HD 3D gaming should be.
(As you all know, I have always advocated 3D gaming will be for the PS4 age... when the platform bandwidth is 4 to 6 times what it is on the current PS3.)
UbiSoft may feel that if they develop advanced 3D games for the PC platform, with todays Fermi and Sandibridge chips they can give new I.P. their just deserves technically, and would like new customers to experience these I.P's the way they should be experienced and not dumbed down...
UbiSoft may simply be saying - we need more power, and we need it now... we want equivalence with what the PC has today and not have to wait another 5 years for it!
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 4/13/2011 12:41:03 AM
I think games like Uncharted 3 will show developers what can be done if the right programming and optimisation techniques are employed and used on the PS3. No doubts it is getting more and more difficult to squeeze juice out of our black baby, but she still has some go in her, and this years line up of exclusives will show this.
UbiSoft (and to some extent, other 3rd party developers), may feel similar that the cost of developing titles for 360 and PS3 separately is just to difficult to bare, they have to combine development as we have seen throughout this gen - and therefore may feel frustrated that they cannot get the best out of the said target platforms.
Needless to say, having spent about half a day trawling through many of Digital Foundry's Face Off articles (comparing technical differences between the 360 and PS3), its overwhelmingly evident that the PS3 has come out second best most of the time thanks to non-exclusive development cost and time constraints. Multi-platform technologies and aging engines have not helped the matter. Yes, the PS3 exclusives do shine, for the most part, but at a bit of stretched.
The Sony exclusive tech has improved over this life cycle, with the only exception of having to endure poor shadow casting affects for both exclusive and non-exclusive games (some games do a better job than others) - a testament to the huge calculation overheads required that our hyped super HD next generation consoles where supposed to have handled with ease - but that is for another time to discuss...
The question of 3D may also, in part, be on the minds of UbiSoft executives. They may be looking at film worlds presented in motion pictures such as Avatar; they may want to create experiences closer to this for gamers in proper 3D HD (for each eye) - they know too well, as we do, that the current crop of 3D titles are more of a "try and see if it can be done to any great effect" situation. A situation where Sony and M$ in particular want to extend the life cycle of these aging units as far as possible into the future, but at the same time selling us a cheapish derivative of what true HD 3D gaming should be.
(As you all know, I have always advocated 3D gaming will be for the PS4 age... when the platform bandwidth is 4 to 6 times what it is on the current PS3.)
UbiSoft may feel that if they develop advanced 3D games for the PC platform, with todays Fermi and Sandibridge chips they can give new I.P. their just deserves technically, and would like new customers to experience these I.P's the way they should be experienced and not dumbed down...
UbiSoft may simply be saying - we need more power, and we need it now... we want equivalence with what the PC has today and not have to wait another 5 years for it!
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 4/13/2011 12:41:03 AM
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:57:31 AM
Personally, I believe that if we wait a couple more years for a new platform, the hardware (at least from Sony) will be sufficient for real time ray tracing at 1080p resolution. I'd rather wait for that and let the talented devs apply that technology to 3D games than see the constant dependence on GPU chip sets for certain functionality continue.
Imagine a Power7 derivative biased for games and media combined with a modern Fermi design from nVidia. That would be a system to be reckoned with.
Imagine a Power7 derivative biased for games and media combined with a modern Fermi design from nVidia. That would be a system to be reckoned with.
5 up, 0 down
JMO_INDY
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 8:31:42 AM
mmmm Power 7 from IBM *drools* What a lackluster name though :/
0 up, 0 down
___________
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:48:00 AM
ray tracings a pipe dream!
we need to get all games running in 1080P, then all games running in 60FPS, before we start worrying about things like that!
we need to get all games running in 1080P, then all games running in 60FPS, before we start worrying about things like that!
3 up, 3 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:52:41 AM
Great point Qubex. The PS3 is hitting it's stride, with several years left in it's tank.
It's why I believe every developer should focus on the PS3 first, and port it to the 360 and it's 2-4 DVDs.
It's why I believe every developer should focus on the PS3 first, and port it to the 360 and it's 2-4 DVDs.
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:14:02 AM
@Mr Anonymous Coward (I'd use a name, except you have none),
Ray tracing is a pipe dream? Tell that to Intel who were pushing experimental ray tracing on high end PC systems about 4-5 years ago. The lighting models of many games already use a simplified form of ray tracing as it stands. Fully ray tracing helps with a lot of things that we otherwise have to do, such as hidden object removal, clipping, collision detection, and so forth. To do ray tracing you model everything in 3D, I'll not over do the glorification of ray tracing, but in many ways it simplifies and unifies a lot of what graphics engines have to do. It requires a lot of computing grunt, but not so much GPU power. Funnily enough, I seem to remember IBM showing real time ray tracing on multi-cell test beds without a GPU in sight before PS3 launched. Considering what the Power7 architecture is capable of, it should be within the grasp of designers.
The PS3 as it stands now can do 3D at 720p, depending on the post effects involved. 1080p is only twice the number of pixels, and the next console generation will be far more than double the performance of the current one. If Sony stick true to their commitment of being state of the art at launch to maintain as long a life for the product as possible, then a system emerging 6-7 years after the PS3 could have sufficient compute power to perform real time ray tracing.
Perhaps it's a dream, perhaps not. But considering that the PS3 already does full stereoscopic 3D, ray tracing is the next logical step. I think you're too entranced by the CPU/GPU model of the PC architecture. Remember in ray tracing, you don't farm the graphics off to the GPU, you simply have a lot of computing power to power the ray tracing engine and use the GPU for specific effects and elements like full screen filtering and anti-aliasing. If you look at the PS3 architecture, if you ran it at a lower resolution, perhaps 480p, you might actually be able to pull off real time raytracing in a game on the PS3. If the Cell were 4 times as powerful, you might be able to pull off realtime ray tracing at something like 1080p, perhaps s little under full 1080p, but scaled up to full 1080p. Either way, it's feasible.
OK, it could be a dream, but technically, it's doable. Wouldn't it be awesome if it could be done?
Regarding your name. *If* you used a name I could type, I'd use it, but since you persist in using the non-name, I'll persist in calling you Anonymous Coward - since you took such offense to Anonymous Cowherd.
Ray tracing is a pipe dream? Tell that to Intel who were pushing experimental ray tracing on high end PC systems about 4-5 years ago. The lighting models of many games already use a simplified form of ray tracing as it stands. Fully ray tracing helps with a lot of things that we otherwise have to do, such as hidden object removal, clipping, collision detection, and so forth. To do ray tracing you model everything in 3D, I'll not over do the glorification of ray tracing, but in many ways it simplifies and unifies a lot of what graphics engines have to do. It requires a lot of computing grunt, but not so much GPU power. Funnily enough, I seem to remember IBM showing real time ray tracing on multi-cell test beds without a GPU in sight before PS3 launched. Considering what the Power7 architecture is capable of, it should be within the grasp of designers.
The PS3 as it stands now can do 3D at 720p, depending on the post effects involved. 1080p is only twice the number of pixels, and the next console generation will be far more than double the performance of the current one. If Sony stick true to their commitment of being state of the art at launch to maintain as long a life for the product as possible, then a system emerging 6-7 years after the PS3 could have sufficient compute power to perform real time ray tracing.
Perhaps it's a dream, perhaps not. But considering that the PS3 already does full stereoscopic 3D, ray tracing is the next logical step. I think you're too entranced by the CPU/GPU model of the PC architecture. Remember in ray tracing, you don't farm the graphics off to the GPU, you simply have a lot of computing power to power the ray tracing engine and use the GPU for specific effects and elements like full screen filtering and anti-aliasing. If you look at the PS3 architecture, if you ran it at a lower resolution, perhaps 480p, you might actually be able to pull off real time raytracing in a game on the PS3. If the Cell were 4 times as powerful, you might be able to pull off realtime ray tracing at something like 1080p, perhaps s little under full 1080p, but scaled up to full 1080p. Either way, it's feasible.
OK, it could be a dream, but technically, it's doable. Wouldn't it be awesome if it could be done?
Regarding your name. *If* you used a name I could type, I'd use it, but since you persist in using the non-name, I'll persist in calling you Anonymous Coward - since you took such offense to Anonymous Cowherd.
8 up, 3 down
Qubex
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:47:58 PM
Highlander, lets refrain from calling people names. Anonymous can bring up valid points from time to time. Everyone here has value, it is a valuable community; let's not bash each other. There is enough hate and disgust in this world as it is...
Back to the topic at hand.
Sony said to us we were at the cutting edge of gaming technology in 2005/06 with the release of the PS3. They advertised true HD gaming at 1080p, with a machine capable of decoding hundreds of HD streams simultaneously etc. They never once mentioned 3D stereoscopic gaming at that point.
Maybe their marketing people did not realise it, or maybe they did, but they were hyping the machine to the stratosphere, as if in 2005/06, this machine could do real time ray-tracing, it could do things that now we can clearly see actually takes a lot of work to do, and to do properly.
We see it clearly with the multi platform games as well, in fact we see that it is even difficult to get decent AA using multi platform engines because of the loading stresses on the RSX compared to the agility of the 360's ATI GPU.
Thank goodness for the Cell. It is because of the Cell that the PS3 has had the "small" advantage to process data in incredible ways, permitting developers to do a lot more than they thought they could do initially.
As mentioned before 3D has been a bolt on, but there is quite a noticeable drop in resolution when implementing this. I am not saying it is not effective. It is and seems to work pretty well for the early adopters. The technical heads know very well though, that there is cheating going on, and they know the hardware is not quite up to the task.
What I have felt all along, is that Sony were clever enough to bring out a machine, that at a stretch, it could do what they original said it could do BUT, for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box and without major constraints. This is the crucial point. Multi platform games and exclusive should have been presented in 1080p as standard and there should not be such poor shadow problems as we see with may games (due to computational constraints) etc. In fact many of the standard multi platform games have come in below resolution in some cases, even below the standard 720p!!! What is all that about when the machine was supposed to be capable of streaming and decoding "hundreds of HD streams simultaneously".
The machine was over hyped and underpowered, at I feel in the past 5 years, I admit, and even Sony my admit too, that the pace of GPU and CPU development has been so rapid, that actually, the PS3 has aged quicker than anticipated. This can happen, no one can see the future that clearly, but one has to admit the market has moved quickly, and will move quicker in the future.
Getting to your point about the real-time ray-tracing, and what the PS4 should be capable of doing... Firstly Sony really do need to create a machine that is WELL ahead of its time. I.e. if they say it can do 1080p HD in true stereoscopic it must do it... and do it comfortably and not at a squeeze. Don't tell me it can, then all the games come out at 720p stereoscopic... whats the point then. Rather be honest and tell me exactly what the machine can do so consumers can decide to go with it or the flexibility of powerful PC rig (that is if they want to spend the money).
Yes there is a price difference, and for some people that matters, BUT I would rather buy an advertised product whereby if it were advertised to do 720p and do it well, then that is fine for me.
Yes, it would be great if it could do 1080p, and we know it has the capabilities to do it at a push, but don't tell me it can by default, and that everything will come out for it at 1080p by default, when in reality it is a real push and strain to perform at that resolution.
I would much rather know it can do 720p well and everything else is a bonus - and if games come out in 720p by default, I know that they will look good, the will have AA (without a push), I will have good clean crisp shadowing (without a push); basically the frame looks good, high end with silly artifacts and other nasties that make games look inferior to what they should be.
Similarly with the ray-tracing adage. If Sony tauts the PS4 as been "able" to do real-time ray-tracing; knowing full well it can but at the machines limits, and they don't communicate that to us... we will be in the same position as we are now.
In 4 years time I will be writing similarly; look, this game should be presenting real-time ray-tracing environments but hey, guess what, the developers said they can't. They don't have enough power to have ray-tracing and a 32 player multi-player game.
Or look, we could do ray-tracing, that is great for light occlusion effects and/or texture specularity effects, but I am sorry, we will have to use a cheap shadow mapping method because we just can't squeeze any more out of it. In fact we need to turn ray-tracing off to give you a great gaming experience.
If the above happens... then this is unacceptable for me; and I am sure others as well.
Again, if you gonna hype, hype so you know the machine can do it and do it easily... don't tell me it can, when maybe it really can, but only at a huge push, and only if developers develop for it exclusively with special programming and optimisation trickery that multi-platform developers would never employ.
That is my fear for the PS4...
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 4/13/2011 9:59:41 PM
Back to the topic at hand.
Sony said to us we were at the cutting edge of gaming technology in 2005/06 with the release of the PS3. They advertised true HD gaming at 1080p, with a machine capable of decoding hundreds of HD streams simultaneously etc. They never once mentioned 3D stereoscopic gaming at that point.
Maybe their marketing people did not realise it, or maybe they did, but they were hyping the machine to the stratosphere, as if in 2005/06, this machine could do real time ray-tracing, it could do things that now we can clearly see actually takes a lot of work to do, and to do properly.
We see it clearly with the multi platform games as well, in fact we see that it is even difficult to get decent AA using multi platform engines because of the loading stresses on the RSX compared to the agility of the 360's ATI GPU.
Thank goodness for the Cell. It is because of the Cell that the PS3 has had the "small" advantage to process data in incredible ways, permitting developers to do a lot more than they thought they could do initially.
As mentioned before 3D has been a bolt on, but there is quite a noticeable drop in resolution when implementing this. I am not saying it is not effective. It is and seems to work pretty well for the early adopters. The technical heads know very well though, that there is cheating going on, and they know the hardware is not quite up to the task.
What I have felt all along, is that Sony were clever enough to bring out a machine, that at a stretch, it could do what they original said it could do BUT, for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box and without major constraints. This is the crucial point. Multi platform games and exclusive should have been presented in 1080p as standard and there should not be such poor shadow problems as we see with may games (due to computational constraints) etc. In fact many of the standard multi platform games have come in below resolution in some cases, even below the standard 720p!!! What is all that about when the machine was supposed to be capable of streaming and decoding "hundreds of HD streams simultaneously".
The machine was over hyped and underpowered, at I feel in the past 5 years, I admit, and even Sony my admit too, that the pace of GPU and CPU development has been so rapid, that actually, the PS3 has aged quicker than anticipated. This can happen, no one can see the future that clearly, but one has to admit the market has moved quickly, and will move quicker in the future.
Getting to your point about the real-time ray-tracing, and what the PS4 should be capable of doing... Firstly Sony really do need to create a machine that is WELL ahead of its time. I.e. if they say it can do 1080p HD in true stereoscopic it must do it... and do it comfortably and not at a squeeze. Don't tell me it can, then all the games come out at 720p stereoscopic... whats the point then. Rather be honest and tell me exactly what the machine can do so consumers can decide to go with it or the flexibility of powerful PC rig (that is if they want to spend the money).
Yes there is a price difference, and for some people that matters, BUT I would rather buy an advertised product whereby if it were advertised to do 720p and do it well, then that is fine for me.
Yes, it would be great if it could do 1080p, and we know it has the capabilities to do it at a push, but don't tell me it can by default, and that everything will come out for it at 1080p by default, when in reality it is a real push and strain to perform at that resolution.
I would much rather know it can do 720p well and everything else is a bonus - and if games come out in 720p by default, I know that they will look good, the will have AA (without a push), I will have good clean crisp shadowing (without a push); basically the frame looks good, high end with silly artifacts and other nasties that make games look inferior to what they should be.
Similarly with the ray-tracing adage. If Sony tauts the PS4 as been "able" to do real-time ray-tracing; knowing full well it can but at the machines limits, and they don't communicate that to us... we will be in the same position as we are now.
In 4 years time I will be writing similarly; look, this game should be presenting real-time ray-tracing environments but hey, guess what, the developers said they can't. They don't have enough power to have ray-tracing and a 32 player multi-player game.
Or look, we could do ray-tracing, that is great for light occlusion effects and/or texture specularity effects, but I am sorry, we will have to use a cheap shadow mapping method because we just can't squeeze any more out of it. In fact we need to turn ray-tracing off to give you a great gaming experience.
If the above happens... then this is unacceptable for me; and I am sure others as well.
Again, if you gonna hype, hype so you know the machine can do it and do it easily... don't tell me it can, when maybe it really can, but only at a huge push, and only if developers develop for it exclusively with special programming and optimisation trickery that multi-platform developers would never employ.
That is my fear for the PS4...
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 4/13/2011 9:59:41 PM
0 up, 1 down
JMO_INDY
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:21:34 PM
Can you imagine the discussions the 360 fans have? Probably about a new sub-par disc or something and how COD is still cool, and we talk about Ray-Tracing LOL
0 up, 2 down
sha4dowknight05
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:38:57 PM
______________ OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS, for once I agree with you.
He's right guys, I do want my games all at 60fps since it's easy on the eyes. True that the xbox 360 has a better framerate since it's gpu is better and can push out more pixles or something maybe not pixles but it's GPU is a unified structure which makes the anti aliasing much better. I reliazed in the SOCOM 4 beta that the anti aliasing is terrible in it is a sore to my eyes. This person actually made a true point for once in their life.
Ray tracing, not so much for ps3, considering it would take more time and tech but in. At the time of development I'm sure they didn't have the time and money to perfect the GPU and CPU to thier full potential as of today. I kind of think the ps3 and launch of GT5 are simular since, they were only partially complete.
I hope in the next generation of console we can get rid of standard tvs since, really a pain most ps3 games play in subHD. All you cheapos, get a HD TV this instant!!!!!!
He's right guys, I do want my games all at 60fps since it's easy on the eyes. True that the xbox 360 has a better framerate since it's gpu is better and can push out more pixles or something maybe not pixles but it's GPU is a unified structure which makes the anti aliasing much better. I reliazed in the SOCOM 4 beta that the anti aliasing is terrible in it is a sore to my eyes. This person actually made a true point for once in their life.
Ray tracing, not so much for ps3, considering it would take more time and tech but in. At the time of development I'm sure they didn't have the time and money to perfect the GPU and CPU to thier full potential as of today. I kind of think the ps3 and launch of GT5 are simular since, they were only partially complete.
I hope in the next generation of console we can get rid of standard tvs since, really a pain most ps3 games play in subHD. All you cheapos, get a HD TV this instant!!!!!!
0 up, 2 down
Highlander
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 12:28:16 AM
Qubex,
Regarding names for our dear Anonymous Coward, that is the standard anonymous name used on many comment forums all over the Internet, he posts no name, so I will call him the same thing I call every other anonymous poster. If it was name calling I wanted, I'm certain I could think of something far more insulting than a standard default name used all across the Internet.
As for your points about the PS3, I think you are applying your inflated expectations of what the PS3 *should* be capable of to what it is actually capable of. As you correctly pointed out, stereoscopic 3D wasn't even mentioned at launch, it's an entirely new capability that has been added in firmware. I think you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cell BE and the PS3 architecture. The RSX was added to supplement the CellBE. The system design/concept did not originally include a GPU. Your point about Anti-aliasing is missing the mark. The ATI GPU includes specific functionality to handle FS AA, even includeing eDRAM to handle the task, but the eDRAM isn't even spec'd to a full 720p frame! As has been seen in recent games, the Cell is very capable of handling anti-aliasing work in addition to other things, it's all a matter of prioritizing the work.
You're extremely negative about the PS3 throughout your comment slating it for aging too fast, for not being capable of things *you* say it should be capable of and for not being a 360 architecturally. Frankly, I think you're way, way off base. The GPU in the PS3 has aged, probably faster than anticipated, but the CellBE has not. Absolutely has not. You still can't buy a commodity processor that can outpace the CellBE, and that is 5 years after the thing became commercially available. Claiming that the data processing advantage that the CellBE offers is 'small' is - IMHO - ludicrous. The 6 available SPUs and the interconnecting Bus allows the Cell to process data in streams in ways that the Xenon processor in the 360 cannot, and in fact, in ways in which no x86 design can either. If you want to just look at the SPUs as additional cores, they are dual issue cores running at 3.2GHz, that leaves the PS3 running 7 dual issue cores at 3.2GHz vs 3 dual issue cores at 3 GHz in the 360. This is not a small advantage just looking at the bare numbers, but when you consider that the SPUs can each be tasked with separate tasks or used in groups, in parallel, or in series, they are far more than Floating point units as they feature a RISC instruction set that allows them to be fully programmable, and not simple co-processors. I have noted that many articles in certain apparently objective online 'journals' tend to take quite a slant at the PS3 technology when attempting to assess it. I believe this stems in part from being so biased to the PC architectural model and a heavy reliance on the GPU.
Honestly though, after setting very high expectations for the PS3 in your own mind, that it cold not meet, you then go ahead and do the same thing again for the PS4. If the PS4 arrives and is capable of doing real time ray tracing at 720p/1080i are you honestly going to criticize it for that? If the thing is capable of real time ray tracing at that resolution, it doesn't preclude if from being capable of full stereoscopic 3D at 1080p using a more traditional programming model.
The objective of the PS3 design is to place as much compute power as possible in the hands of the developer and let them use it in whatever way they can. The PS4 will, I hope, follow that same philosophy. I really think your assessment of the PS3 hardware is way off base. Your statement that it has "aged quicker than anticipated" is I feel, simply a provocative statement because it really bears no resemblance to the situation as I see it.
I think that this statement about the PS3 from your post illustrates the main issue in your thought process regarding the PS3 and potential PS4;
"for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box "
I'm sorry, but I believe you are extremely wrong on this point. I feel that the machine has exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations. However you used the word 'should' which suggests that actually you are saying that it falls below your expectations of it's capabilities, rather than falling below some objective statement of expectations.
I think we will have to agree to differ here because I retain a much more optimistic point of view both of the PS3's technology (especially the Cell BE) than you do. I do hope though that we can agree that PS3 exclusives continue to stretch the machine still, and that in fact the hardware is capable of a lot more than many multi-platform games would demonstrate. I don't know the specific reasons for that lack in multi-platform games but I have a suspicion that it's a combination of PC developers stuck in a PC development mindset and the 360 development environment specifically designed to be PC-alike for developers. Rather than learning to exploit the PS3 architecture, developers have relied on compilers to help them out.
Still some multi-plat devs are getting on with it, and I respect them immensely. But that's nothing to do with the PS3s technology being inferior or not good enough, rather it's more to do with developers and their areas of focus.
Regarding names for our dear Anonymous Coward, that is the standard anonymous name used on many comment forums all over the Internet, he posts no name, so I will call him the same thing I call every other anonymous poster. If it was name calling I wanted, I'm certain I could think of something far more insulting than a standard default name used all across the Internet.
As for your points about the PS3, I think you are applying your inflated expectations of what the PS3 *should* be capable of to what it is actually capable of. As you correctly pointed out, stereoscopic 3D wasn't even mentioned at launch, it's an entirely new capability that has been added in firmware. I think you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cell BE and the PS3 architecture. The RSX was added to supplement the CellBE. The system design/concept did not originally include a GPU. Your point about Anti-aliasing is missing the mark. The ATI GPU includes specific functionality to handle FS AA, even includeing eDRAM to handle the task, but the eDRAM isn't even spec'd to a full 720p frame! As has been seen in recent games, the Cell is very capable of handling anti-aliasing work in addition to other things, it's all a matter of prioritizing the work.
You're extremely negative about the PS3 throughout your comment slating it for aging too fast, for not being capable of things *you* say it should be capable of and for not being a 360 architecturally. Frankly, I think you're way, way off base. The GPU in the PS3 has aged, probably faster than anticipated, but the CellBE has not. Absolutely has not. You still can't buy a commodity processor that can outpace the CellBE, and that is 5 years after the thing became commercially available. Claiming that the data processing advantage that the CellBE offers is 'small' is - IMHO - ludicrous. The 6 available SPUs and the interconnecting Bus allows the Cell to process data in streams in ways that the Xenon processor in the 360 cannot, and in fact, in ways in which no x86 design can either. If you want to just look at the SPUs as additional cores, they are dual issue cores running at 3.2GHz, that leaves the PS3 running 7 dual issue cores at 3.2GHz vs 3 dual issue cores at 3 GHz in the 360. This is not a small advantage just looking at the bare numbers, but when you consider that the SPUs can each be tasked with separate tasks or used in groups, in parallel, or in series, they are far more than Floating point units as they feature a RISC instruction set that allows them to be fully programmable, and not simple co-processors. I have noted that many articles in certain apparently objective online 'journals' tend to take quite a slant at the PS3 technology when attempting to assess it. I believe this stems in part from being so biased to the PC architectural model and a heavy reliance on the GPU.
Honestly though, after setting very high expectations for the PS3 in your own mind, that it cold not meet, you then go ahead and do the same thing again for the PS4. If the PS4 arrives and is capable of doing real time ray tracing at 720p/1080i are you honestly going to criticize it for that? If the thing is capable of real time ray tracing at that resolution, it doesn't preclude if from being capable of full stereoscopic 3D at 1080p using a more traditional programming model.
The objective of the PS3 design is to place as much compute power as possible in the hands of the developer and let them use it in whatever way they can. The PS4 will, I hope, follow that same philosophy. I really think your assessment of the PS3 hardware is way off base. Your statement that it has "aged quicker than anticipated" is I feel, simply a provocative statement because it really bears no resemblance to the situation as I see it.
I think that this statement about the PS3 from your post illustrates the main issue in your thought process regarding the PS3 and potential PS4;
"for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box "
I'm sorry, but I believe you are extremely wrong on this point. I feel that the machine has exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations. However you used the word 'should' which suggests that actually you are saying that it falls below your expectations of it's capabilities, rather than falling below some objective statement of expectations.
I think we will have to agree to differ here because I retain a much more optimistic point of view both of the PS3's technology (especially the Cell BE) than you do. I do hope though that we can agree that PS3 exclusives continue to stretch the machine still, and that in fact the hardware is capable of a lot more than many multi-platform games would demonstrate. I don't know the specific reasons for that lack in multi-platform games but I have a suspicion that it's a combination of PC developers stuck in a PC development mindset and the 360 development environment specifically designed to be PC-alike for developers. Rather than learning to exploit the PS3 architecture, developers have relied on compilers to help them out.
Still some multi-plat devs are getting on with it, and I respect them immensely. But that's nothing to do with the PS3s technology being inferior or not good enough, rather it's more to do with developers and their areas of focus.
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 12:28:16 AM
Qubex,
Regarding names for our dear Anonymous Coward, that is the standard anonymous name used on many comment forums all over the Internet, he posts no name, so I will call him the same thing I call every other anonymous poster. If it was name calling I wanted, I'm certain I could think of something far more insulting than a standard default name used all across the Internet.
As for your points about the PS3, I think you are applying your inflated expectations of what the PS3 *should* be capable of to what it is actually capable of. As you correctly pointed out, stereoscopic 3D wasn't even mentioned at launch, it's an entirely new capability that has been added in firmware. I think you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cell BE and the PS3 architecture. The RSX was added to supplement the CellBE. The system design/concept did not originally include a GPU. Your point about Anti-aliasing is missing the mark. The ATI GPU includes specific functionality to handle FS AA, even includeing eDRAM to handle the task, but the eDRAM isn't even spec'd to a full 720p frame! As has been seen in recent games, the Cell is very capable of handling anti-aliasing work in addition to other things, it's all a matter of prioritizing the work.
You're extremely negative about the PS3 throughout your comment slating it for aging too fast, for not being capable of things *you* say it should be capable of and for not being a 360 architecturally. Frankly, I think you're way, way off base. The GPU in the PS3 has aged, probably faster than anticipated, but the CellBE has not. Absolutely has not. You still can't buy a commodity processor that can outpace the CellBE, and that is 5 years after the thing became commercially available. Claiming that the data processing advantage that the CellBE offers is 'small' is - IMHO - ludicrous. The 6 available SPUs and the interconnecting Bus allows the Cell to process data in streams in ways that the Xenon processor in the 360 cannot, and in fact, in ways in which no x86 design can either. If you want to just look at the SPUs as additional cores, they are dual issue cores running at 3.2GHz, that leaves the PS3 running 7 dual issue cores at 3.2GHz vs 3 dual issue cores at 3 GHz in the 360. This is not a small advantage just looking at the bare numbers, but when you consider that the SPUs can each be tasked with separate tasks or used in groups, in parallel, or in series, they are far more than Floating point units as they feature a RISC instruction set that allows them to be fully programmable, and not simple co-processors. I have noted that many articles in certain apparently objective online 'journals' tend to take quite a slant at the PS3 technology when attempting to assess it. I believe this stems in part from being so biased to the PC architectural model and a heavy reliance on the GPU.
Honestly though, after setting very high expectations for the PS3 in your own mind, that it cold not meet, you then go ahead and do the same thing again for the PS4. If the PS4 arrives and is capable of doing real time ray tracing at 720p/1080i are you honestly going to criticize it for that? If the thing is capable of real time ray tracing at that resolution, it doesn't preclude if from being capable of full stereoscopic 3D at 1080p using a more traditional programming model.
The objective of the PS3 design is to place as much compute power as possible in the hands of the developer and let them use it in whatever way they can. The PS4 will, I hope, follow that same philosophy. I really think your assessment of the PS3 hardware is way off base. Your statement that it has "aged quicker than anticipated" is I feel, simply a provocative statement because it really bears no resemblance to the situation as I see it.
I think that this statement about the PS3 from your post illustrates the main issue in your thought process regarding the PS3 and potential PS4;
"for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box "
I'm sorry, but I believe you are extremely wrong on this point. I feel that the machine has exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations. However you used the word 'should' which suggests that actually you are saying that it falls below your expectations of it's capabilities, rather than falling below some objective statement of expectations.
I think we will have to agree to differ here because I retain a much more optimistic point of view both of the PS3's technology (especially the Cell BE) than you do. I do hope though that we can agree that PS3 exclusives continue to stretch the machine still, and that in fact the hardware is capable of a lot more than many multi-platform games would demonstrate. I don't know the specific reasons for that lack in multi-platform games but I have a suspicion that it's a combination of PC developers stuck in a PC development mindset and the 360 development environment specifically designed to be PC-alike for developers. Rather than learning to exploit the PS3 architecture, developers have relied on compilers to help them out.
Still some multi-plat devs are getting on with it, and I respect them immensely. But that's nothing to do with the PS3s technology being inferior or not good enough, rather it's more to do with developers and their areas of focus.
Regarding names for our dear Anonymous Coward, that is the standard anonymous name used on many comment forums all over the Internet, he posts no name, so I will call him the same thing I call every other anonymous poster. If it was name calling I wanted, I'm certain I could think of something far more insulting than a standard default name used all across the Internet.
As for your points about the PS3, I think you are applying your inflated expectations of what the PS3 *should* be capable of to what it is actually capable of. As you correctly pointed out, stereoscopic 3D wasn't even mentioned at launch, it's an entirely new capability that has been added in firmware. I think you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cell BE and the PS3 architecture. The RSX was added to supplement the CellBE. The system design/concept did not originally include a GPU. Your point about Anti-aliasing is missing the mark. The ATI GPU includes specific functionality to handle FS AA, even includeing eDRAM to handle the task, but the eDRAM isn't even spec'd to a full 720p frame! As has been seen in recent games, the Cell is very capable of handling anti-aliasing work in addition to other things, it's all a matter of prioritizing the work.
You're extremely negative about the PS3 throughout your comment slating it for aging too fast, for not being capable of things *you* say it should be capable of and for not being a 360 architecturally. Frankly, I think you're way, way off base. The GPU in the PS3 has aged, probably faster than anticipated, but the CellBE has not. Absolutely has not. You still can't buy a commodity processor that can outpace the CellBE, and that is 5 years after the thing became commercially available. Claiming that the data processing advantage that the CellBE offers is 'small' is - IMHO - ludicrous. The 6 available SPUs and the interconnecting Bus allows the Cell to process data in streams in ways that the Xenon processor in the 360 cannot, and in fact, in ways in which no x86 design can either. If you want to just look at the SPUs as additional cores, they are dual issue cores running at 3.2GHz, that leaves the PS3 running 7 dual issue cores at 3.2GHz vs 3 dual issue cores at 3 GHz in the 360. This is not a small advantage just looking at the bare numbers, but when you consider that the SPUs can each be tasked with separate tasks or used in groups, in parallel, or in series, they are far more than Floating point units as they feature a RISC instruction set that allows them to be fully programmable, and not simple co-processors. I have noted that many articles in certain apparently objective online 'journals' tend to take quite a slant at the PS3 technology when attempting to assess it. I believe this stems in part from being so biased to the PC architectural model and a heavy reliance on the GPU.
Honestly though, after setting very high expectations for the PS3 in your own mind, that it cold not meet, you then go ahead and do the same thing again for the PS4. If the PS4 arrives and is capable of doing real time ray tracing at 720p/1080i are you honestly going to criticize it for that? If the thing is capable of real time ray tracing at that resolution, it doesn't preclude if from being capable of full stereoscopic 3D at 1080p using a more traditional programming model.
The objective of the PS3 design is to place as much compute power as possible in the hands of the developer and let them use it in whatever way they can. The PS4 will, I hope, follow that same philosophy. I really think your assessment of the PS3 hardware is way off base. Your statement that it has "aged quicker than anticipated" is I feel, simply a provocative statement because it really bears no resemblance to the situation as I see it.
I think that this statement about the PS3 from your post illustrates the main issue in your thought process regarding the PS3 and potential PS4;
"for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box "
I'm sorry, but I believe you are extremely wrong on this point. I feel that the machine has exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations. However you used the word 'should' which suggests that actually you are saying that it falls below your expectations of it's capabilities, rather than falling below some objective statement of expectations.
I think we will have to agree to differ here because I retain a much more optimistic point of view both of the PS3's technology (especially the Cell BE) than you do. I do hope though that we can agree that PS3 exclusives continue to stretch the machine still, and that in fact the hardware is capable of a lot more than many multi-platform games would demonstrate. I don't know the specific reasons for that lack in multi-platform games but I have a suspicion that it's a combination of PC developers stuck in a PC development mindset and the 360 development environment specifically designed to be PC-alike for developers. Rather than learning to exploit the PS3 architecture, developers have relied on compilers to help them out.
Still some multi-plat devs are getting on with it, and I respect them immensely. But that's nothing to do with the PS3s technology being inferior or not good enough, rather it's more to do with developers and their areas of focus.
0 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 9:19:00 AM
1st i thought we were talking about the ps3, not the PC.
2nd the ps3 CAN do allot of things, so lets see it!
once we get games running 60FPS, 1080P, at least 8xMSAA then ill think about effects like ray tracing.
till then, its going for icing before you have the cake.
what systems actually can do always seems to lag behind what they actually do, i mean am i the only one who remembers father ken promising ps3 games running in 1080P and 60FPS?
one thing ps3 games really need to improve on is AA, will be interesting to see if anyone adopts the tech lucas arts developed during TFU2 though they have not used it yet.
before we go searching for the key, lets find the chest first ay?
ray tracing is nice, but frame rate and proper AA is much higher on the priority list!
in theory the ps3 can run physX too, but has the ps3 used it properly yet?
put the PC version of mafia 2 up against the ps3 version and you will have your answer!
hell the ps3 version of crysis 2 has no physX, but the PC version really impressed me it has better physX support then what mafia 2 does!
2nd the ps3 CAN do allot of things, so lets see it!
once we get games running 60FPS, 1080P, at least 8xMSAA then ill think about effects like ray tracing.
till then, its going for icing before you have the cake.
what systems actually can do always seems to lag behind what they actually do, i mean am i the only one who remembers father ken promising ps3 games running in 1080P and 60FPS?
one thing ps3 games really need to improve on is AA, will be interesting to see if anyone adopts the tech lucas arts developed during TFU2 though they have not used it yet.
before we go searching for the key, lets find the chest first ay?
ray tracing is nice, but frame rate and proper AA is much higher on the priority list!
in theory the ps3 can run physX too, but has the ps3 used it properly yet?
put the PC version of mafia 2 up against the ps3 version and you will have your answer!
hell the ps3 version of crysis 2 has no physX, but the PC version really impressed me it has better physX support then what mafia 2 does!
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 10:22:18 AM
@AC
You said;
"once we get games running 60FPS, 1080P, at least 8xMSAA then ill think about effects like ray tracing."
I'd love to see the compute budget for a game running at full 1080p60 with 8xMSAA and compare that against the compute budget for a game running at 1080p60 ray traced. I'm thinking we'd both conclude that the ray traced version would require more compute, I would be interested in knowing how much more, because if it's not a lot (comparatively) I'd rather game console makers and developers shoot for that goal and get within 90% of the full 1080p resolution using ray tracing, than have a game running at 1080p60 with 8xMSAA. At that resolution unless you're playing on a large screen or running the two side by side you won't be able to tell the difference in resolution, but I'd suspect that the ray traced game would still be visually superior.
Yes, the PS3 can run PhysX, but with the CellBE available, why waste the RSX on that? Whether a developer uses the PhysX library or not, really doesn't matter. It's a means to an end, and if the same goal is achieved using CellBE based libraries does it matter if PhysX was used or not? Why quote multi-platform games - especially a game (Crysis2) by one of the more heavily PC biased devs as examples of the PS3's supposed shortcomings. As with most multi-platform games with deficiencies on the PS3, the fault more often than not lies with the developer, not the hardware or dev kit. As you yourself said, this isn't about PCs, so why go there with a comparison?
I remember Ken promising games at 1080p. I also remember playing WipeoutHD and GT5P and GT5, which do run in a 1080p mode (although I will accept the criticism that the Wipeout games make resolution compromises to maintain framerate when necessary). The point is that it's possible to code games to run at 1080p60. In fact, depending on what you want to do with your game's graphics, any Ps3 game could run at 1080p60 - as could any 360 game. However if a developer decides that a) far more players have 720p TVs than 1080p, and some are still running sub-HD and b) there are more important effects and other functionality that take precedence over pure resolution and framerate, we'll see games running at 720p/1080i scaling to 1080p because the dev chooses to do that. In other words, the budget is there, but it depends on what the developer chooses to do with it. As a demonstration of what I am talking about, many PC games have sliders to adjust various aspects of their graphics so that PCs of various capability can still run the game acceptably. You can whack the resolution way up, and run into framerate issues if all the other bells and whistles are enabled, right? But if you knock back the detail, or the lighting effects, or some other parameter, the game can achieve better framerates at the higher resolution.
That's what I'm talking about regarding the ability of games to run at 1080p60. The hardware (both PS3 and 360) is capable of running games at 1080p60, depending on what other attributes the game's graphics have. So it comes back to what does the developer want to do, what effects, what textures, what lighting, etc. So, Ken could well have been right - but developers chose otherwise and settled at 720p since it is the predominant HD resolution of the day.
I still think that a PS4 may have sufficient computing power to handle fully ray traced games at resolutions between 720p and 1080p. If that is indeed the case, can anyone seriously say that they don't want to see fully ray traced games even if they have to compromise the resolution and run in the region of 900p (assuming of course that it's possible - which we don't yet know)? Would I like to see every game running at 1080p60 with 8xMSAA, yes, of course, but neither the PS3 hardware nor the 360, nor any PC available at the time they launched were capable of that either - at least not with any level of complexity in the graphics and textures used.
You said;
"once we get games running 60FPS, 1080P, at least 8xMSAA then ill think about effects like ray tracing."
I'd love to see the compute budget for a game running at full 1080p60 with 8xMSAA and compare that against the compute budget for a game running at 1080p60 ray traced. I'm thinking we'd both conclude that the ray traced version would require more compute, I would be interested in knowing how much more, because if it's not a lot (comparatively) I'd rather game console makers and developers shoot for that goal and get within 90% of the full 1080p resolution using ray tracing, than have a game running at 1080p60 with 8xMSAA. At that resolution unless you're playing on a large screen or running the two side by side you won't be able to tell the difference in resolution, but I'd suspect that the ray traced game would still be visually superior.
Yes, the PS3 can run PhysX, but with the CellBE available, why waste the RSX on that? Whether a developer uses the PhysX library or not, really doesn't matter. It's a means to an end, and if the same goal is achieved using CellBE based libraries does it matter if PhysX was used or not? Why quote multi-platform games - especially a game (Crysis2) by one of the more heavily PC biased devs as examples of the PS3's supposed shortcomings. As with most multi-platform games with deficiencies on the PS3, the fault more often than not lies with the developer, not the hardware or dev kit. As you yourself said, this isn't about PCs, so why go there with a comparison?
I remember Ken promising games at 1080p. I also remember playing WipeoutHD and GT5P and GT5, which do run in a 1080p mode (although I will accept the criticism that the Wipeout games make resolution compromises to maintain framerate when necessary). The point is that it's possible to code games to run at 1080p60. In fact, depending on what you want to do with your game's graphics, any Ps3 game could run at 1080p60 - as could any 360 game. However if a developer decides that a) far more players have 720p TVs than 1080p, and some are still running sub-HD and b) there are more important effects and other functionality that take precedence over pure resolution and framerate, we'll see games running at 720p/1080i scaling to 1080p because the dev chooses to do that. In other words, the budget is there, but it depends on what the developer chooses to do with it. As a demonstration of what I am talking about, many PC games have sliders to adjust various aspects of their graphics so that PCs of various capability can still run the game acceptably. You can whack the resolution way up, and run into framerate issues if all the other bells and whistles are enabled, right? But if you knock back the detail, or the lighting effects, or some other parameter, the game can achieve better framerates at the higher resolution.
That's what I'm talking about regarding the ability of games to run at 1080p60. The hardware (both PS3 and 360) is capable of running games at 1080p60, depending on what other attributes the game's graphics have. So it comes back to what does the developer want to do, what effects, what textures, what lighting, etc. So, Ken could well have been right - but developers chose otherwise and settled at 720p since it is the predominant HD resolution of the day.
I still think that a PS4 may have sufficient computing power to handle fully ray traced games at resolutions between 720p and 1080p. If that is indeed the case, can anyone seriously say that they don't want to see fully ray traced games even if they have to compromise the resolution and run in the region of 900p (assuming of course that it's possible - which we don't yet know)? Would I like to see every game running at 1080p60 with 8xMSAA, yes, of course, but neither the PS3 hardware nor the 360, nor any PC available at the time they launched were capable of that either - at least not with any level of complexity in the graphics and textures used.
1 up, 1 down
Qubex
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 10:54:47 PM
Thank you gentlemen for all your responses, they were interesting and educative.
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
0 up, 0 down
___________
Friday, April 15, 2011 @ 10:18:27 AM
thats what im saying though.
whats possible is very different from what were seeing, that has always been the case!
not only with consoles, not only with PCs, not only this gen, that has always been the way, we never see everything a platform is capable of.
i just think there are things higher on the priority list then ray tracing, and there not as computational intensive.
no point spending all your cash on one thing, when you can spend same amount, but get 3 things.
ray tracing may give you better looking games, but what would be more beneficial?
ray tracing, 900p, 30FPS.
or no ray tracing, 1080P, 60FPS, 8xMSAA.
PC games have such higher AA, most games support up to 32QSAA i thinks the highest i have seen.
then theres Vsync, motion blur, all the visual effects PC games offer.
ray tracings nice, but for the cost i think were much better off going for other things less intensive first.
buy a WRX STI, build it up, then buy a Ferrari.
instead of going all out and buying a Ferrari first, and having nothing left over.
whats possible is very different from what were seeing, that has always been the case!
not only with consoles, not only with PCs, not only this gen, that has always been the way, we never see everything a platform is capable of.
i just think there are things higher on the priority list then ray tracing, and there not as computational intensive.
no point spending all your cash on one thing, when you can spend same amount, but get 3 things.
ray tracing may give you better looking games, but what would be more beneficial?
ray tracing, 900p, 30FPS.
or no ray tracing, 1080P, 60FPS, 8xMSAA.
PC games have such higher AA, most games support up to 32QSAA i thinks the highest i have seen.
then theres Vsync, motion blur, all the visual effects PC games offer.
ray tracings nice, but for the cost i think were much better off going for other things less intensive first.
buy a WRX STI, build it up, then buy a Ferrari.
instead of going all out and buying a Ferrari first, and having nothing left over.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, April 15, 2011 @ 1:11:42 PM
Some of the issues you present about ray tracing are not, I believe, actually issues with ray tracing. That said, until someone tries to do it, we'll never really know. Everything I have read on the topic of ray tracing in games suggests that ray tracing requires such a different approach that many aspects of games that are separately processed today, would be handled as part of the ray tracing flow, so you potentially increase the efficiency of the processing.
But, as I said, until someone goes and does it, there's really no way to know if that's truly the case, or just - as you might say - a pipe dream.
But, as I said, until someone goes and does it, there's really no way to know if that's truly the case, or just - as you might say - a pipe dream.
0 up, 0 down
Jed
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:29:39 AM
Reply
It looks like many of you think exactly what I thought when I saw this.
Just put your resources into making PS3 exclusives and you will be a generation ahead.
Just put your resources into making PS3 exclusives and you will be a generation ahead.
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:53:42 AM
Reply
I think this is a case of Ubisoft walking down the garden path a little too far with Nintendo, realizing that they have gone too far and haven't a clue how to approach the PS3 with one or two notable exceptions. Now they want someone else to save them because they can't be bothered to work with the current generation. So they're basically saying "please just throw more hardware at it so we don't have to work hard..."
5 up, 1 down
shadowscorpio
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:32:06 PM
If what you say happens to be true, they're probably hoping for next gen console with Nintendo's type architecture.
1 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 2:10:56 AM
Reply
It's already been said... but that is absolute crap! ou don't need new hardware to spark creativity. Sure, most devs debut a new IP on new hardware, but that hardly makes it essential for success. It's one of the reasons that I'm liking Capcom right now. They've got two new IPs in the pipeline for release next year, when a lot of people are expecting the announcement of at least one new console.
Seriously... as long as the game is good and interesting, I'll buy it. I don't give a flying **** if it's a new iteration in an existing franchise or something completely new. All I care is that it's good and that I can hear about it. They need to stop making excuses, get off their arses and actually do something. Is this why they seem so reluctant to release I Am Alive? They're afraid that it won't do well on the current console cycle? So what, they're going to wait until the next one comes out? This is ridiculous, and frustrating on so many levels. The logic of these people is broken beyond hope of repair.
Peace.
Seriously... as long as the game is good and interesting, I'll buy it. I don't give a flying **** if it's a new iteration in an existing franchise or something completely new. All I care is that it's good and that I can hear about it. They need to stop making excuses, get off their arses and actually do something. Is this why they seem so reluctant to release I Am Alive? They're afraid that it won't do well on the current console cycle? So what, they're going to wait until the next one comes out? This is ridiculous, and frustrating on so many levels. The logic of these people is broken beyond hope of repair.
Peace.
6 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 2:22:10 AM
Reply
I think this is the first psxe-article that I totally agree with at least 95% of every single comment :D
And I just have to join y'all... Quoting, "That’s when consumers are more open to trying new things" - what kind of *bullshit* is that? It's the complete opposite! Right after you got new hardware you just want to see how fast it runs and how good it looks! Gimme FPS, gimme car racing, gimme ANYTHING as long as it's loud, flashy and show off what awesome investment I've done!
It's later, after the initial love rush, that one start to look for new things to try.
And then there's the new hardware dev challenge, as Ben mentions. Creativity enters the building only after you've learned to master the tools! Anyone who has ever learnt to play any instrument know this only too well. The same applies to coding!
What could he possibly want to achieve by saying such bull? That we should not bother with upcoming UbiSoft titles cause nothing new will be found there? Geez...
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/13/2011 2:27:57 AM
And I just have to join y'all... Quoting, "That’s when consumers are more open to trying new things" - what kind of *bullshit* is that? It's the complete opposite! Right after you got new hardware you just want to see how fast it runs and how good it looks! Gimme FPS, gimme car racing, gimme ANYTHING as long as it's loud, flashy and show off what awesome investment I've done!
It's later, after the initial love rush, that one start to look for new things to try.
And then there's the new hardware dev challenge, as Ben mentions. Creativity enters the building only after you've learned to master the tools! Anyone who has ever learnt to play any instrument know this only too well. The same applies to coding!
What could he possibly want to achieve by saying such bull? That we should not bother with upcoming UbiSoft titles cause nothing new will be found there? Geez...
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/13/2011 2:27:57 AM
3 up, 2 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:54:33 AM
The first article you have agreed with (95%)?
You must not read much. PSX's articles are spot on. I may disagree with a review here and there, but most what is said here is correct.
You must not read much. PSX's articles are spot on. I may disagree with a review here and there, but most what is said here is correct.
5 up, 3 down
Highlander
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:56:30 AM
What I can't understand about Ubisoft's comment is that the PS3 clearly *isn't* tapped out yet, there is still more growth within it's capability. Even then, there has generally been one further wave of games once a platform hits that plateau before the next generation arrives. I think that this year is the year the final wave of continual improvement hits the PS3, and next year is the first year of the plateau - with one or two notable exceptions who will find ways to drag more power from the beast, rather like Polyphony did with the PS2. Either way, that puts a new generation in 2013, with a late 2012 announcement and E3 2013 unveiling of real units and an autumn 2013 launch. Specifically for Sony, 2012 is the year of NGP, so I don't think we need to be looking for PS4 until 2013 anyway - just from a practicality point of view and a business focus point of view.
Since the PS3 Launched we've had the initial wave of games with a wireless motion sensing controller. BluRay being adopted as the HD video Standard and HD-DVD died. PlayStation Home arrived began to grow, PSn matured greatly. New PS3 Slim, and new price points. Multiple waves of incrementally better games headlined by Uncharted 2 in 2009. Uncharted is remarkable because it's a game which we still talk of today, nearly 18 months later as the benchmark. And of course we have 3D and Move in the mix too now.
Think about all of that;
2006 - Launch - at a seemingly insane price into a market already dominated by the competition and with an extremely negative press reaction.
2007 - European launch, new models, first wave of games - Resistance, Motorstorm, Warhawk, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
2008 - BluRay wins over HD-DVD, BluRay consolidates, Home launches, PSN matures, another incrementally better wave of PS3 games, Burnout Paradise, MGS4, Little Big Planet, WipeoutHD (1080p goodness)...
2009 - Home matures, Slim arrives, price cuts, Killzone 2, MLB '09, Flower, Infamous, Uncharted 2, wipeout Fury (1080p goodness)...
2010 - 3D and Move arrive on PS3, Home grows and get's games, PSN matures, PS Plus arrives, GT5 (1080p goodness), FFXIII, God of War III, Heavy Rain...
2011 - PS3 sells through 50 million units during it's first 4 complete years and takes global lead over 360 for HD gaming platforms. Possible autumn price cut? Home, Move, 3D, PSN all continue to mature, Home gets more games, 3D games arrive in numbers, Mainstream games arrive with 3D and move enablement. Big games like Little Big Planet 2, Infamous 2, Uncharted 3, Killzone 3, Last Guardian, Resistance 3, Ratched and clank All Four One, SOCOM 4, Twisted Metal land in 2011. NGP lands at the end of 2011 along with PlayStation Suite arriving on Cell phones and NGP and PS3/PSN?
2012 - There's a lot on the plate already for 2011, and some games have been bumped back, perhaps to 2012. With a price cut in late 2011, PS3 should continue to stretch it's legs in 2012, and the continual improvement of Home, and PSN along with the maturation of 3D and Move will make an interesting backdrop to the Ps3 in 2012. I can't see a single reason to muddy the waters with a new console during 2012, the NGP will be getting established in 2012, and the market doesn't need any further distraction.
PS3 has already had a remarkable life.
I don't really think that anyone - except perhaps Ubisoft, is ready for a new console. perhaps Ubisoft's concentration on Nintendo (Wii/DS/3DS) and the 360 is to blame? the Wii is described by EA as a legacy platform. The DS is as old as the PSP and about 1/8th as capable hardware wise, not to mention redundant now the 3DS is here, which pretty much guarantees it's legacy status. It's pretty well recognized that the 360 was tapped out last year, if not earlier in terms of devs being able to wring more from the platform, which in a sense makes it a legacy platform. The 360 though got a shot in the arm from Kinect, such a pity MS can't back it up with solid games for Kinect... Nintendo are expected to launch an HD version of the Wii this year (perhaps), so the key platforms that Ubisoft is involved with are aging. It's no wonder *they* want a new generation. It rather seems like the rest of the industry would like to have a year or two of stability so that they can make some profits instead of having to boost spending on learning new platforms and developing new game engines for new architectures.
Ubisoft is just a tiny bit out of step here.
Just my opinion of course...
Since the PS3 Launched we've had the initial wave of games with a wireless motion sensing controller. BluRay being adopted as the HD video Standard and HD-DVD died. PlayStation Home arrived began to grow, PSn matured greatly. New PS3 Slim, and new price points. Multiple waves of incrementally better games headlined by Uncharted 2 in 2009. Uncharted is remarkable because it's a game which we still talk of today, nearly 18 months later as the benchmark. And of course we have 3D and Move in the mix too now.
Think about all of that;
2006 - Launch - at a seemingly insane price into a market already dominated by the competition and with an extremely negative press reaction.
2007 - European launch, new models, first wave of games - Resistance, Motorstorm, Warhawk, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
2008 - BluRay wins over HD-DVD, BluRay consolidates, Home launches, PSN matures, another incrementally better wave of PS3 games, Burnout Paradise, MGS4, Little Big Planet, WipeoutHD (1080p goodness)...
2009 - Home matures, Slim arrives, price cuts, Killzone 2, MLB '09, Flower, Infamous, Uncharted 2, wipeout Fury (1080p goodness)...
2010 - 3D and Move arrive on PS3, Home grows and get's games, PSN matures, PS Plus arrives, GT5 (1080p goodness), FFXIII, God of War III, Heavy Rain...
2011 - PS3 sells through 50 million units during it's first 4 complete years and takes global lead over 360 for HD gaming platforms. Possible autumn price cut? Home, Move, 3D, PSN all continue to mature, Home gets more games, 3D games arrive in numbers, Mainstream games arrive with 3D and move enablement. Big games like Little Big Planet 2, Infamous 2, Uncharted 3, Killzone 3, Last Guardian, Resistance 3, Ratched and clank All Four One, SOCOM 4, Twisted Metal land in 2011. NGP lands at the end of 2011 along with PlayStation Suite arriving on Cell phones and NGP and PS3/PSN?
2012 - There's a lot on the plate already for 2011, and some games have been bumped back, perhaps to 2012. With a price cut in late 2011, PS3 should continue to stretch it's legs in 2012, and the continual improvement of Home, and PSN along with the maturation of 3D and Move will make an interesting backdrop to the Ps3 in 2012. I can't see a single reason to muddy the waters with a new console during 2012, the NGP will be getting established in 2012, and the market doesn't need any further distraction.
PS3 has already had a remarkable life.
I don't really think that anyone - except perhaps Ubisoft, is ready for a new console. perhaps Ubisoft's concentration on Nintendo (Wii/DS/3DS) and the 360 is to blame? the Wii is described by EA as a legacy platform. The DS is as old as the PSP and about 1/8th as capable hardware wise, not to mention redundant now the 3DS is here, which pretty much guarantees it's legacy status. It's pretty well recognized that the 360 was tapped out last year, if not earlier in terms of devs being able to wring more from the platform, which in a sense makes it a legacy platform. The 360 though got a shot in the arm from Kinect, such a pity MS can't back it up with solid games for Kinect... Nintendo are expected to launch an HD version of the Wii this year (perhaps), so the key platforms that Ubisoft is involved with are aging. It's no wonder *they* want a new generation. It rather seems like the rest of the industry would like to have a year or two of stability so that they can make some profits instead of having to boost spending on learning new platforms and developing new game engines for new architectures.
Ubisoft is just a tiny bit out of step here.
Just my opinion of course...
10 up, 1 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 11:25:10 AM
@Highlander
If fall 2013 is the speculated time when the next consoles are launched and given that AAA developers usually spend 2 years to produce a game, I'd think developers would want to get their hands on new hardware soon. Of course they're going to want to have plenty of time to learn about the new hardware and start developing for it, especially if the console makers want to have some nice launch titles ready on day one.
If fall 2013 is the speculated time when the next consoles are launched and given that AAA developers usually spend 2 years to produce a game, I'd think developers would want to get their hands on new hardware soon. Of course they're going to want to have plenty of time to learn about the new hardware and start developing for it, especially if the console makers want to have some nice launch titles ready on day one.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:22:14 PM
Indeed Simcoe. although, I don't think that any devs had either the 360 or PS3 dev platforms more than 6-9 months ahead of the console coming to market. I know that there were som Cell development systems and really early dev-kits around prior to that, but really, the actual dev kits didn;t arrive as early as you're suggesting.
Remember Uncharted Drake's Fortune arrived a year after the PS3 launched. Naughty Dog is a first party studio who undoubtedly had early access to the dev platform. If you're looking at about two years to develop Uncharted Drakes Fortune, that would mean that they got the early dev kits 9-12 months before the console launched. Insomniac had Resistance out at launch, but I believe that they worked on PC and PS2 based development systems initially, porting things to the PS3 once the dev kit became available.
So, a 2013 launch isn't impossible, and dev kits potentially wouldn't be necessary until early 2013 if a late 2013 launch was planned. Part of me still thinks it's 2014, not 2013, for various reasons, but my post was really intended to layout why PS4 could not really be expected before 2013.
Remember Uncharted Drake's Fortune arrived a year after the PS3 launched. Naughty Dog is a first party studio who undoubtedly had early access to the dev platform. If you're looking at about two years to develop Uncharted Drakes Fortune, that would mean that they got the early dev kits 9-12 months before the console launched. Insomniac had Resistance out at launch, but I believe that they worked on PC and PS2 based development systems initially, porting things to the PS3 once the dev kit became available.
So, a 2013 launch isn't impossible, and dev kits potentially wouldn't be necessary until early 2013 if a late 2013 launch was planned. Part of me still thinks it's 2014, not 2013, for various reasons, but my post was really intended to layout why PS4 could not really be expected before 2013.
1 up, 1 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 2:47:45 PM
While I was writing that comment, I was thinking that if they didn't have the full 2 years with the hardware, that they would develop for the PS3 or whatever then port it to the PS4. So those developers could, if they really wanted to, release PS3 versions of PS4 launch games.
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 3:03:00 PM
@maxpontiac: The first article where I've agreed with 95% of everything said in the *COMMENTS*. The words posted by the common people, folks like you and me.
3 up, 1 down
sha4dowknight05
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:43:56 PM
@pontiac
you give to much credit for psxextreme.com Most articles have arguments, therefore they are not spot on. this is a valid statement. if they were spot-on i wouldn't be seeing anyone complain or argue back.
There hasn't been a single article I've read and I've read lots here that hasn't had clean and simple statements or agreement. Most have agreements and some sort of bash as experienced here, negetive feedback and other stuff. You can't expect everyone to agree with eachother when you express an opinion.
To you it may be spot on, but to me these are good and well written articles, but sometimes they stir crap up.
you give to much credit for psxextreme.com Most articles have arguments, therefore they are not spot on. this is a valid statement. if they were spot-on i wouldn't be seeing anyone complain or argue back.
There hasn't been a single article I've read and I've read lots here that hasn't had clean and simple statements or agreement. Most have agreements and some sort of bash as experienced here, negetive feedback and other stuff. You can't expect everyone to agree with eachother when you express an opinion.
To you it may be spot on, but to me these are good and well written articles, but sometimes they stir crap up.
1 up, 2 down
RadioHeader
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 4:37:06 AM
Reply
Nextgen starts when Sony says so :)
10 up, 2 down
Ignitus
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:46:57 AM
I remember when SONY executives made those claims among others, funny how things turned out. Yeah, corporate pride... it didn't take them very far.
1 up, 5 down
___________
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 4:57:36 AM
Reply
id love a new generation of consoles, simply because im sick of PC games getting dumbed down because of ancient hardware!
though the wallet does not want one, new systems cost upwards of 700 bucks, and the new games normally cost a extra 20 bucks or so.
spending 1.2K trying to fix my PC this week, i think thats enough spending money for a few months!
though the wallet does not want one, new systems cost upwards of 700 bucks, and the new games normally cost a extra 20 bucks or so.
spending 1.2K trying to fix my PC this week, i think thats enough spending money for a few months!
3 up, 7 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 9:57:20 AM
Don't you get it?
PC gaming is like having a high maintenance woman who thrives on cosmetic surgery.
You should with the cash your dropping on your rig just to keep it cutting edge.
But hey, I get it. Your paying for console left overs. That has to hurt. HA!!
PC gaming is like having a high maintenance woman who thrives on cosmetic surgery.
You should with the cash your dropping on your rig just to keep it cutting edge.
But hey, I get it. Your paying for console left overs. That has to hurt. HA!!
7 up, 1 down
Lord carlos
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 12:39:57 PM
PS3 exclusives are about a billion times better than pc exclusives.
World of warcraft is boll0cks as are most mmorpgs.
Starcraft,dungeon keeper1&2,AVP1&2,farcry and crysis are the only pc games i can think off that i enjoyed.
Yep RTS AND FPS is all the pc is good for gamewise,the rest is sh!t just like you ________
World of warcraft is boll0cks as are most mmorpgs.
Starcraft,dungeon keeper1&2,AVP1&2,farcry and crysis are the only pc games i can think off that i enjoyed.
Yep RTS AND FPS is all the pc is good for gamewise,the rest is sh!t just like you ________
5 up, 1 down
sha4dowknight05
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:47:38 PM
Hah,
totally true the pc's power are more powerful and I agree.
We are kept back by what the pc can do and it alone can.
I would like to see a game besides crysis, play on the pc only with graphics on top notch and blow me away with awesomeness!
Really no multiplatforms so nothing gets held back.
It would be awesome to see!
totally true the pc's power are more powerful and I agree.
We are kept back by what the pc can do and it alone can.
I would like to see a game besides crysis, play on the pc only with graphics on top notch and blow me away with awesomeness!
Really no multiplatforms so nothing gets held back.
It would be awesome to see!
1 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 9:24:05 AM
Lord carlos, that is the biggest crock of sh*t i have ever heard!
if warcraft is bolloks, then why is it one of the best selling series of all time?
theres not many PC exclusives out there, but civilization 5 kicks the royal sh*t out of every ps3 exclusive put together, then multiplied by a thousand!
now were done talking sh*t.......
what cash keeping it up to date?
I spent 3K building it 3 years ago, and all i have done to it was buy a 2nd GPU for SLI thats it!
long gone are the days where each new game required new hardware, thats a 20 year old stereotype and it was false 20 years ago!
battlefield 3 is looking FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!
finally a game thats actually made for PC, then ported to consoles!
this will be the best looking game of the year!
destruction is really impressive too, i booked myself in for a eye exam when i saw the dust and particle effects in the last pics!
almost looks photo realistic!
and theres still 8+ months to polish and make it look better!
Last edited by ___________ on 4/14/2011 9:27:52 AM
if warcraft is bolloks, then why is it one of the best selling series of all time?
theres not many PC exclusives out there, but civilization 5 kicks the royal sh*t out of every ps3 exclusive put together, then multiplied by a thousand!
now were done talking sh*t.......
what cash keeping it up to date?
I spent 3K building it 3 years ago, and all i have done to it was buy a 2nd GPU for SLI thats it!
long gone are the days where each new game required new hardware, thats a 20 year old stereotype and it was false 20 years ago!
battlefield 3 is looking FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!
finally a game thats actually made for PC, then ported to consoles!
this will be the best looking game of the year!
destruction is really impressive too, i booked myself in for a eye exam when i saw the dust and particle effects in the last pics!
almost looks photo realistic!
and theres still 8+ months to polish and make it look better!
Last edited by ___________ on 4/14/2011 9:27:52 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 10:29:11 AM
Contemporary PC games benefit from contemporary GPUs. In terms of raw computing power, the Cell is still on par with the majority of mainstream CPUs. Neither HD console has a GPU that can hope to keep up with today's mainstream GPUs. Comparing PC games that lean heavily on contemporary GPU resources isn't exactly a fair comparison.
You'd have to admit though that PS3 games that are developed by teams that really 'get' the CellBE processor do deliver extremely high quality results that do not look poor in comparison with contemporary PC games. There is a difference in resolutions, but PS3 exclusives deliver things that multi-plat games, especially those ported from PCs, rarely (if ever) deliver.
Honestly though comparing a 5 year old console design against a current gaming PC is a little ludicrous, especially on the GPU front. Of course the console will come off looking worse. Apart from anything else, the console has sold for about the same price as a low end commodity PC (or less) for it's entire life, and yet the comparison is made against a gaming rig that typically costs 4+ times the amount that the console does. that's never going to be a favorable comparison, is it?
You'd have to admit though that PS3 games that are developed by teams that really 'get' the CellBE processor do deliver extremely high quality results that do not look poor in comparison with contemporary PC games. There is a difference in resolutions, but PS3 exclusives deliver things that multi-plat games, especially those ported from PCs, rarely (if ever) deliver.
Honestly though comparing a 5 year old console design against a current gaming PC is a little ludicrous, especially on the GPU front. Of course the console will come off looking worse. Apart from anything else, the console has sold for about the same price as a low end commodity PC (or less) for it's entire life, and yet the comparison is made against a gaming rig that typically costs 4+ times the amount that the console does. that's never going to be a favorable comparison, is it?
1 up, 1 down
wizzardofozzy
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 3:40:30 PM
Yeah in a way,telling a pc gamer pays too much is like a mustang owner telling a lambo owner that he paid too much.
Also,something of note.When it comes to the ps3,you have sony(or ms) making the initial investment,giving you the ps3 on the cheap,with them taking any loss.Pc owners dont have that convenience.
Last edited by wizzardofozzy on 4/14/2011 3:55:39 PM
Also,something of note.When it comes to the ps3,you have sony(or ms) making the initial investment,giving you the ps3 on the cheap,with them taking any loss.Pc owners dont have that convenience.
Last edited by wizzardofozzy on 4/14/2011 3:55:39 PM
0 up, 0 down
___________
Friday, April 15, 2011 @ 10:10:34 AM
of course its not a fair comparison, but thats not the point the point is going all out whats the best we can see?
that is what im trying to say, you look at consoles every few months the bar is set higher.
PC on the other hand it has barely budged since crysis came out 4 years ago!
as the guy from ATI said a few weeks ago todays PCs are around 4x more powerful then console games, so why arent PC games looking 4 times as good?
maybe it is a little because of the APIs, allot seem to hate M$s DX API, but allot of it has to do with concerned developers.
spending the time and money developing a high end game for PCs just does not make financial sense.
thats why i really want new consoles to come out, that way the gap between PCs and consoles would be smaller, and everyone wins.
PC gamers get better games, and console gamers get better games!
that is what im trying to say, you look at consoles every few months the bar is set higher.
PC on the other hand it has barely budged since crysis came out 4 years ago!
as the guy from ATI said a few weeks ago todays PCs are around 4x more powerful then console games, so why arent PC games looking 4 times as good?
maybe it is a little because of the APIs, allot seem to hate M$s DX API, but allot of it has to do with concerned developers.
spending the time and money developing a high end game for PCs just does not make financial sense.
thats why i really want new consoles to come out, that way the gap between PCs and consoles would be smaller, and everyone wins.
PC gamers get better games, and console gamers get better games!
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, April 15, 2011 @ 1:07:14 PM
I think the reason that games are not looking 4 times better has to do with the pixel count and diminishing returns. The increasing pixel count soaks up processor cycles without offering anything more than additional resolution. When I say diminishing returns, I'm referring to the fact that at a certain level of quality (difficult to actually quantify) games have become about as good as they are going to get. While there is room for some improvement, things are already very good, and so there is less room for improvement, despite a lot of effort. Diminishing returns.
In a sense, we're getting to the point where games are 'good enough'.
In a sense, we're getting to the point where games are 'good enough'.
0 up, 0 down
wizzardofozzy
Saturday, April 16, 2011 @ 2:51:06 AM
I don't expect them to choose the pc just because we have more powerful hardware,thats not in their best interest.
Im talking about high resolution,frames per second,mods and .ini tweaks(e.g. Crysis).
Im talking about high resolution,frames per second,mods and .ini tweaks(e.g. Crysis).
0 up, 0 down
___________
Saturday, April 16, 2011 @ 8:44:19 AM
games are the way they are because it does not make financial sense to spend the extra cash time and effort to bring the PC versions of games up to spec.
thats why, if PC games were selling allot more then console games, then it would be worth it, but there not.
developers are not going to spend the extra time and money to see maybe a 1% sales increase.
if the PC market was such larger then it would be worth it, but sadly its not.
that is exactly why i want new consoles, because new consoles is really the only way were going to see all games look better.
there are many, many areas developers can improve on, but till we get new consoles i cant see that happening.
not saying were going to be seeing the same games, there will be slight improvements, but were not going to see much of a increase till new consoles.
RAGE, BF3, uncharted 3, Agent, will probably be the final stepping stone for current consoles.
thats why, if PC games were selling allot more then console games, then it would be worth it, but there not.
developers are not going to spend the extra time and money to see maybe a 1% sales increase.
if the PC market was such larger then it would be worth it, but sadly its not.
that is exactly why i want new consoles, because new consoles is really the only way were going to see all games look better.
there are many, many areas developers can improve on, but till we get new consoles i cant see that happening.
not saying were going to be seeing the same games, there will be slight improvements, but were not going to see much of a increase till new consoles.
RAGE, BF3, uncharted 3, Agent, will probably be the final stepping stone for current consoles.
0 up, 0 down
dlte
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 8:40:56 AM
Reply
In other words, Ubisoft isn't creative enough for this generation.
6 up, 1 down
evilmunkie
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 8:48:21 AM
Reply
Ubisoft could not be more wrong and its real simple to prove. How long did it take them to make something that was overall great on the PS3 (story/graphics/gameplay and pacing - wise)? Some would argue about that one, but who wants them starting from scratch all over again? Who wants them to try and learn the in and outs of new hardware and have them make games that make you go 'meh' for afew months till they understand it? Why couldn't they channel their creativity into consoles they already know? Wouldn't these new IPs have a better chance of flourishing into some thing worth while if more people were able to play upon release? Who wants all that mess, not me.
I want everyone to re-read the 3rd paragraph of this article. Done? First of all when in the PS2's life did God of War 2 come out again? Second, maybe people are more willing to try new IPs when new consoles comes out, but they also play it safe with what they know if thats available. Has the thought that maybe the majority of new games on new consoles are new IPs so they can give their established IPs extra polish for their first attempt in a new machine? If they happen to make something new people enjoy during this time then its a win/win if they came make sequels from it. Ubisoft, if your creativity is really being held back by the current gen then make something amazing that needs to run on a high end pc only. It doesn't matter how well it sells or how much you make from it, the only thing that will really matter is how many people you will make say "they were right" by making something innovative, creative and fun.
Last edited by evilmunkie on 4/13/2011 8:53:13 AM
I want everyone to re-read the 3rd paragraph of this article. Done? First of all when in the PS2's life did God of War 2 come out again? Second, maybe people are more willing to try new IPs when new consoles comes out, but they also play it safe with what they know if thats available. Has the thought that maybe the majority of new games on new consoles are new IPs so they can give their established IPs extra polish for their first attempt in a new machine? If they happen to make something new people enjoy during this time then its a win/win if they came make sequels from it. Ubisoft, if your creativity is really being held back by the current gen then make something amazing that needs to run on a high end pc only. It doesn't matter how well it sells or how much you make from it, the only thing that will really matter is how many people you will make say "they were right" by making something innovative, creative and fun.
Last edited by evilmunkie on 4/13/2011 8:53:13 AM
4 up, 0 down
Lord carlos
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 12:29:42 PM
Reply
Eh?
Pi$$ off ubisoft i like my ps3 just fine!
Pi$$ off ubisoft i like my ps3 just fine!
4 up, 1 down
AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 1:06:44 PM
Reply
Ubisoft hasn't even caught up with one of the best devs this gaming generation. I'm sure Ubi will be fine for game exclusives for Microsoft.
3 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 2:05:55 PM
Reply
The only thing that Ubisoft has maxed out....
....is Ubisoft!!!!!!!
....is Ubisoft!!!!!!!
3 up, 1 down
Lairfan
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 7:33:41 PM
Reply
Well that was pretty stupid to say. Maybe they should fix the screen-tearing in AC before they start talking about how they're being limited by the current consoles. Seriously, if you can't handle the tech of the most powerful console (PS3) this gen, how do you think you're gonna do in the next gen?
1 up, 0 down
sha4dowknight05
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 10:32:16 PM
Reply
I could use a new generation of consoles in 2 years. I'm too hooked on my ps3 and really don't want a new system at least 2 years form now. I hope sony launches their new playstation illeteration same as microsoft if they even do just so we don't get bumped back a year.
0 up, 0 down
walking target
Thursday, April 14, 2011 @ 2:27:16 PM
Reply
Wow, maybe Ubisoft should complete the games they have in development this generation first, eh?
*Cough**Cough*GHOST RECON*Cough**Cough*
Ubisoft, if you were a person and were sitting here right now... I'm pretty sure I'd punch you in the throat...
*Cough**Cough*GHOST RECON*Cough**Cough*
Ubisoft, if you were a person and were sitting here right now... I'm pretty sure I'd punch you in the throat...
0 up, 1 down
BikerSaint
Reply
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 @ 9:51:07 PM
Just try squeezing more out of what you have now.