Developing games for the ps3 - Blu-ray Forum

Gamekid · 01-16-2007, 11:24 PM

I have heard reports that developing games for the ps3 is expensive and is taking longer then ever to do. The playstation 2 had a lot of games that weren't as good as they could have been. With the playstation 3, I'm wondering if we will see any games in the future that will fall in the 1 to 5 score range on a scale of 1 to 10. I have also heard reports that some companies are asking Sony for help with their games because the company doesn't know how to take advantage of the hardware fully. Some people think that developing for a $600 console is too much, but that Sony doesn't seem to care about that since they have already sold 1 million consoles by the end of 2006. The playstation 3 is only going to do well if there are good games for it.

Maximus · 01-16-2007, 11:33 PM

I think the Devs are just having to get used to the ridiculously symmetric nature of the Cell, and it having to pick up the slack of a somewhat underpowered GPU.

Once they get this done, which usually takes one generation but they seem to have done very well for R:FoM so they could be quicker, the PS3 will easily surpass any PC/console on the market.

I wouldn't underestimate the power that lies within the Cell CPU, it is one of the first new-ish architectures that IBM are willing to put millions of dollars worth of R&D into, so it has got to be pretty damn good. Compare that to the IBM made Xenon in the Xbox, IBM have no plans to put anymore research into this project and any hardware revisions will have to be funded by MS.

blitz6speed · 01-16-2007, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamekid

I have heard reports that developing games for the ps3 is expensive and is taking longer then ever to do. The playstation 2 had a lot of games that weren't as good as they could have been. With the playstation 3, I'm wondering if we will see any games in the future that will fall in the 1 to 5 score range on a scale of 1 to 10. I have also heard reports that some companies are asking Sony for help with their games because the company doesn't know how to take advantage of the hardware fully. Some people think that developing for a $600 console is too much, but that Sony doesn't seem to care about that since they have already sold 1 million consoles by the end of 2006. The playstation 3 is only going to do well if there are good games for it.

Every sony system in history has been hard to develop for. Every developer complains and *****es about it at every new console launch. And every time sony comes out with a new system, sales exceed the previous because sony knows what its doing.

Seriously, just wait till the system matures. Look at the God Of War series on PS2, looking at the launch ps2 games, could you have imagined a game that insane coming out on it? I guarentee you the PS3 will be the top system in terms of best exclusive titles, the 360 is easier to program for and because of that, they've already peaked out the system with Gears of War (which looks gorgeous). Epic said that 95% of the 360 is used hardware potential wise in the game. The only thing more demanding is HD-DVD playback which uses 98+% of CPU usage. So honestly, for the PS3, it just can go up, i predict Gears will be a game not passed graphically for QUITE a while on the 360.

Maximus · 01-16-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6speed

Every sony system in history has been hard to develop for. Every developer complains and *****es about it at every new console launch. And every time sony comes out with a new system, sales exceed the previous because sony knows what its doing.

Seriously, just wait till the system matures. Look at the God Of War series on PS2, looking at the launch ps2 games, could you have imagined a game that insane coming out on it? I guarentee you the PS3 will be the top system in terms of best exclusive titles, the 360 is easier to program for and because of that, they've already peaked out the system with Gears of War (which looks gorgeous). Epic said that 95% of the 360 is used hardware potential wise in the game. The only thing more demanding is HD-DVD playback which uses 98+% of CPU usage. So honestly, for the PS3, it just can go up, i predict Gears will be a game not passed graphically for QUITE a while on the 360.

I agree with pretty much everything there, I would like to add that I think God of War 2 looks better (in the screens at least) that most X360 games minus Gears of War.

Regarding the X360 and HD DVD playback, half of the problem is that ATI still haven't implemented their GPU assisted VC1/AVC decoding, but as you say, the GPU is running at maximum. Even the Intel C2D E6700 can decode a BD without any GPU assistance, and that is only a dual core processor, the X360 has a 3 core CPU.

Gamekid · 01-16-2007, 11:46 PM

Can't sony tell everyone "This is what you do for the cell CPU." What I thought was a good idea is at the time of E3 2005, the game trailers were not running on final ps3 hardware and by E3 2006, games were running on final ps3 hardware. It seemed like Sony was saying to everyone "Here is your ps3 development kit, play around with it and see what you can do". Time goes by and sony says "We want to add this new feature to the development kit." and Sony keeps revising the development kit to the final one. The only high scoring game right now in the 9.0 range is Resistence Fall of Man and other games like Ridge Racer 7 are in the 8.0 range with Tony Hawks Project 8 in the 7.0 range. Comparing Resistence to Tony Hawk, you have to ask yourself what did the Resistence Company do that Neversoft and Activision didn't? The Cell CPU stands out for the ps3 as a small chip that can do a lot assuming you program the code right. Combine the Cell with the RSX and you have something right there. March of this year seems to be the month when the European launch is set to go but also when numerous other games are coming out for the ps3.

Maximus · 01-16-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamekid

Can't sony tell everyone "This is what you do for the cell CPU." What I thought was a good idea is at the time of E3 2005, the game trailers were not running on final ps3 hardware and by E3 2006, games were running on final ps3 hardware. It seemed like Sony was saying to everyone "Here is your ps3 development kit, play around with it and see what you can do". Time goes by and sony says "We want to add this new feature to the development kit." and Sony keeps revising the development kit to the final one. The only high scoring game right now in the 9.0 range is Resistence Fall of Man and other games like Ridge Racer 7 are in the 8.0 range with Tony Hawks Project 8 in the 7.0 range. Comparing Resistence to Tony Hawk, you have to ask yourself what did the Resistence Company do that Neversoft and Activision didn't? The Cell CPU stands out for the ps3 as a small chip that can do a lot assuming you program the code right. Combine the Cell with the RSX and you have something right there. March of this year seems to be the month when the European launch is set to go but also when numerous other games are coming out for the ps3.

The problem with Sony telling the devs what the Cell does, is that Sony doesn't even know what the Cell does!

At the moment you will see a lack of big name games just like the X360 had as devs will be hard at work on the Next_Big_Thing© and games like DMC4 will have to be top notch otherwise they risk alienating many hardcore fans.

Gamekid · 01-17-2007, 12:17 AM

Sony created the playstation 3 so how they not know what it does? If you create a new console, you would know every inch of it. Doesn't make sense. Resistence came out right so some body must know something about the cell cpu.

Maximus · 01-17-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamekid

Sony created the playstation 3 so how they not know what it does? If you create a new console, you would know every inch of it. Doesn't make sense. Resistence came out right so some body must know something about the cell cpu.

Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA), definitely don't know their console inside out, the devs who up until now have been using PS2s take what they are given. Sony engineers may know every inch of the PS3, but they have no involvement in making games.

nobody · 01-17-2007, 01:02 AM

All I know is they better come out with damn visually stunning games for the PS3 especially when their selling point was how powerful the hardware inside the PS3 is. Besides, what's the point in having a "powerful" PS3 if you're just gonna see PS2 quality games. I'd just stick with a PS2 instead of upgrading and save $600.00

Gamekid · 01-17-2007, 02:33 AM

Strange stuff.

NuSoardGraphite · 01-17-2007, 02:42 PM

If you are amazed by what 6 year-old hardware like the PS2 is capable of these days, then multiply that by the increase in power of the PS3 and thats what we're talking about. The PS3 will get better year after year as the developers become more familiar with the hardware. By year 5 I garuntee we'll be dropping our jaws on a daily basis by the amazing stuff we see from developers.

Casey · 01-17-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite

If you are amazed by what 6 year-old hardware like the PS2 is capable of these days, then multiply that by the increase in power of the PS3 and thats what we're talking about. The PS3 will get better year after year as the developers become more familiar with the hardware. By year 5 I garuntee we'll be dropping our jaws on a daily basis by the amazing stuff we see from developers.

agreed. especially considering sony stated that the current games released use less than half the power of the cell processor... In a few years developers will know what this powerful machine is really capable of.

phranctoast · 01-17-2007, 03:23 PM

Im still impressed by games like shadow of the colossus and god of war. The future looks awesome.

Musashi · 01-17-2007, 04:00 PM

PS3 is not so hard to develop for. Every interview I've ever read said it was a big improvement over the PS2, which was hard.

"The PlayStation 3 is based on open and publicly available application programming interfaces. Despite earlier rumors of programming being difficult,[66] IGN reports that they were told that the dev kit "seemed extremely adaptive and easy to program for"" - Wikipedia

It's also not lacking in GPU either. Read the comparison here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...soles#Hardware
According to that, it has the best GPU of the bunch.

Moreoever, not every Sony console was hard to program. The PS2 was, but the PS1 and PSP were not. And according to articles I've seen with credible sources, the PS3 isn't easy like the PS1, but definitely not hard like the PS2. Also, the 360 isn't as easy to program as the first XBox was. Read that in GameInformer.

kknight · 01-17-2007, 10:48 PM

complicated programming for games = awesome game-play & graphics. When I saw what Resistance: Fall of Man can do, I can imagine how cool it will be on future games taking advantage of the Cell processor. I'm confident that future PS3 games will surpass any current-gen games out there in terms of game-play and graphics. I own a 360 and compare to the PS3, I'm already more impress with the PS3. Now if only Sony decides to release a Sixaxis 2 that comes with Rumble & force feedback, then I'm all set for the best gaming console in history!!!

Maximus · 01-17-2007, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musashi

PS3 is not so hard to develop for. Every interview I've ever read said it was a big improvement over the PS2, which was hard.

"The PlayStation 3 is based on open and publicly available application programming interfaces. Despite earlier rumors of programming being difficult,[66] IGN reports that they were told that the dev kit "seemed extremely adaptive and easy to program for"" - Wikipedia

It's also not lacking in GPU either. Read the comparison here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...soles#Hardware
According to that, it has the best GPU of the bunch.

Moreoever, not every Sony console was hard to program. The PS2 was, but the PS1 and PSP were not. And according to articles I've seen with credible sources, the PS3 isn't easy like the PS1, but definitely not hard like the PS2. Also, the 360 isn't as easy to program as the first XBox was. Read that in GameInformer.

It may have the best GPU in the world, but it won't matter as the bandwidth isn't there to pump the information to the CPU.

Otherwise I agree.

nobody · 01-18-2007, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknight

complicated programming for games = awesome game-play & graphics. When I saw what Resistance: Fall of Man can do, I can imagine how cool it will be on future games taking advantage of the Cell processor. I'm confident that future PS3 games will surpass any current-gen games out there in terms of game-play and graphics. I own a 360 and compare to the PS3, I'm already more impress with the PS3. Now if only Sony decides to release a Sixaxis 2 that comes with Rumble & force feedback, then I'm all set for the best gaming console in history!!!

I don't play alot of games, so I don't really have anything to compare Resistance: FOM with. But, I really didn't see anything compelling about Resistance:FOM graphics.

WeApOn · 01-18-2007, 02:00 AM

The one thing that keeps me worrying is everyone saying that the GPU isn't that great. I've heard it's a modified version of an 8800 or something. Since that is pretty much available now, is it safe to say that by the time devs get things working well on PS3, PC games will be twice as better? I hope not. I'm a PC & PS3 gamer, but I'm hoping I will be drawn to PS3 more than I will be my PC.

Musashi · 01-18-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

It may have the best GPU in the world, but it won't matter as the bandwidth isn't there to pump the information to the CPU.

Otherwise I agree.

How much bandwidth would it need to optimize?

According to what I read at IGN, the RAM bandwidths of the PS3 and 360 are comparable, with the PS3 having slightly more on most of the memory, but the 360 has a small chunk about 10MB embedded on the GPU directly that moves far faster than other 512. I'm not sure how big a difference that makes, though it does remind me how the PS2 was criticized for having less VRAM, but its VRAM was insanely fast compared to the rest.

In any event, while I'm fascinated by technology, what I ultimately care about is game quality. I'm holding on PS3 until its better games come out, or until I've got the bucks to get the system, a new stereo, and a truckload of Blu-Ray movies. Soon, hopefully.

fragglerock585 · 01-18-2007, 05:23 AM

you might be referring to the inq article that said that the cell/rsx had terrible bandwidth. That turned out to be the bandwidth of the RSX's access to the XDR ram. If you know anything about Csci, that is more or less meaningless to performance, as the GDDR3 is much more adaptable to graphics and the cell can do some gfx in the XDR itself.

01-16-2007, 11:24 PM	#1
Gamekid Power Member Member since:Feb 2006	Developing games for the ps3 I have heard reports that developing games for the ps3 is expensive and is taking longer then ever to do. The playstation 2 had a lot of games that weren't as good as they could have been. With the playstation 3, I'm wondering if we will see any games in the future that will fall in the 1 to 5 score range on a scale of 1 to 10. I have also heard reports that some companies are asking Sony for help with their games because the company doesn't know how to take advantage of the hardware fully. Some people think that developing for a $600 console is too much, but that Sony doesn't seem to care about that since they have already sold 1 million consoles by the end of 2006. The playstation 3 is only going to do well if there are good games for it.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Level 5 developing new PS3 titles	PS3	AranhaHunter	2	02-10-2010 12:10 AM
Criterion Games (Burnout) developing new Need For Speed	PS3	Shin-Ra	7	12-31-2009 01:48 PM
Developing games for PC and Xbox360 simultaneous	Xbox 360	thunderhawk	1	07-11-2006 08:27 AM

01-16-2007, 11:33 PM	#2
Maximus Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Nov 2006	I think the Devs are just having to get used to the ridiculously symmetric nature of the Cell, and it having to pick up the slack of a somewhat underpowered GPU. Once they get this done, which usually takes one generation but they seem to have done very well for R:FoM so they could be quicker, the PS3 will easily surpass any PC/console on the market. I wouldn't underestimate the power that lies within the Cell CPU, it is one of the first new-ish architectures that IBM are willing to put millions of dollars worth of R&D into, so it has got to be pretty damn good. Compare that to the IBM made Xenon in the Xbox, IBM have no plans to put anymore research into this project and any hardware revisions will have to be funded by MS.

01-16-2007, 11:46 PM	#5
Gamekid Power Member Member since:Feb 2006	Can't sony tell everyone "This is what you do for the cell CPU." What I thought was a good idea is at the time of E3 2005, the game trailers were not running on final ps3 hardware and by E3 2006, games were running on final ps3 hardware. It seemed like Sony was saying to everyone "Here is your ps3 development kit, play around with it and see what you can do". Time goes by and sony says "We want to add this new feature to the development kit." and Sony keeps revising the development kit to the final one. The only high scoring game right now in the 9.0 range is Resistence Fall of Man and other games like Ridge Racer 7 are in the 8.0 range with Tony Hawks Project 8 in the 7.0 range. Comparing Resistence to Tony Hawk, you have to ask yourself what did the Resistence Company do that Neversoft and Activision didn't? The Cell CPU stands out for the ps3 as a small chip that can do a lot assuming you program the code right. Combine the Cell with the RSX and you have something right there. March of this year seems to be the month when the European launch is set to go but also when numerous other games are coming out for the ps3.

01-17-2007, 12:17 AM	#7
Gamekid Power Member Member since:Feb 2006	Sony created the playstation 3 so how they not know what it does? If you create a new console, you would know every inch of it. Doesn't make sense. Resistence came out right so some body must know something about the cell cpu.

01-17-2007, 01:02 AM	#9
nobody Active Member Member since:Jan 2007	All I know is they better come out with damn visually stunning games for the PS3 especially when their selling point was how powerful the hardware inside the PS3 is. Besides, what's the point in having a "powerful" PS3 if you're just gonna see PS2 quality games. I'd just stick with a PS2 instead of upgrading and save $600.00

01-17-2007, 02:33 AM	#10
Gamekid Power Member Member since:Feb 2006	Strange stuff.

01-17-2007, 02:42 PM	#11
NuSoardGraphite Active Member Member since:Nov 2006	If you are amazed by what 6 year-old hardware like the PS2 is capable of these days, then multiply that by the increase in power of the PS3 and thats what we're talking about. The PS3 will get better year after year as the developers become more familiar with the hardware. By year 5 I garuntee we'll be dropping our jaws on a daily basis by the amazing stuff we see from developers.

01-17-2007, 03:23 PM	#13
phranctoast Power Member Member since:Aug 2006 Location:Long Island, NY;psn:phranctoast Blu-ray collection:78	Im still impressed by games like shadow of the colossus and god of war. The future looks awesome.

01-17-2007, 04:00 PM	#14
Musashi Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Manchester, CT Home Theater Gallery:5 4K collection:25 Blu-ray collection:337 Blu-ray reviews: 1	PS3 is not so hard to develop for. Every interview I've ever read said it was a big improvement over the PS2, which was hard. "The PlayStation 3 is based on open and publicly available application programming interfaces. Despite earlier rumors of programming being difficult,[66] IGN reports that they were told that the dev kit "seemed extremely adaptive and easy to program for"" - Wikipedia It's also not lacking in GPU either. Read the comparison here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...soles#Hardware According to that, it has the best GPU of the bunch. Moreoever, not every Sony console was hard to program. The PS2 was, but the PS1 and PSP were not. And according to articles I've seen with credible sources, the PS3 isn't easy like the PS1, but definitely not hard like the PS2. Also, the 360 isn't as easy to program as the first XBox was. Read that in GameInformer.

01-17-2007, 10:48 PM	#15
kknight Senior Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Minnesota Blu-ray reviews:55	complicated programming for games = awesome game-play & graphics. When I saw what Resistance: Fall of Man can do, I can imagine how cool it will be on future games taking advantage of the Cell processor. I'm confident that future PS3 games will surpass any current-gen games out there in terms of game-play and graphics. I own a 360 and compare to the PS3, I'm already more impress with the PS3. Now if only Sony decides to release a Sixaxis 2 that comes with Rumble & force feedback, then I'm all set for the best gaming console in history!!!

01-18-2007, 02:00 AM	#18
WeApOn Special Member Member since:Aug 2006 Location:Rhode Island, USA	The one thing that keeps me worrying is everyone saying that the GPU isn't that great. I've heard it's a modified version of an 8800 or something. Since that is pretty much available now, is it safe to say that by the time devs get things working well on PS3, PC games will be twice as better? I hope not. I'm a PC & PS3 gamer, but I'm hoping I will be drawn to PS3 more than I will be my PC.

01-18-2007, 05:23 AM	#20
fragglerock585 Member Member since:Nov 2006	you might be referring to the inq article that said that the cell/rsx had terrible bandwidth. That turned out to be the bandwidth of the RSX's access to the XDR ram. If you know anything about Csci, that is more or less meaningless to performance, as the GDDR3 is much more adaptable to graphics and the cell can do some gfx in the XDR itself.

Best PS3 Game Deals