PS3 leaked footage

sprinkles

LookingFor wrote:

I think part of interaction is the feedback you get on that. Which something like processing power is directly relevant to.

I think on interface, specifically, though, it's easy to overlook the fairly radical push Sony has made with the likes of eyetoy, long before Rev was a twinkle in Nintendo's eye. And they'll continue to evolve that. Unfortunately the biggest stumbling block for eyetoy right now - asides from technicalities and the cost of infrared cameras if you wanted 3d motion detection etc. - is that it's not a standard part of the machine, it's an optional complementary interface. Sony hasn't made that kind of leap yet, but they certainly haven't neglected that area either.

That's the problem. They are afraid to take that leap. I agree they made a great effort with the eye toy, but followed it up with no real big hitting game that used it. It was a party game piece. The problem is highlighted with the PSP v DS. Great graphics, big screen, USB link, Multimedia, etc etc and yet the ds with games with simple graphics but unique interaction wins hands down in terms of playability. I have both and the ds is never out of arms reach, my psp.....well I'd have to look for it.

Brains over Braun. Give the dev a little more to play with than raw power. Make them think.

So now original IPs are destined to obscurity? Seriously, publishers can't win. Take some interest in them, and maybe they'll provide more. All I know is that many of the titles I mentioned from Sony are big budget games, and the investment on their part is huge.

I will say, though, that Sony's own portfolio seems more heavily weighted toward original games than the others, at least last time I checked. They're all doing fairly well, though, that I know of (which doesn't cover Nintendo since they've barely announced anything yet).

Original IP's are certainly not destined to obscurity but you seriously can't expect me to get excited about a list of games noone knows anything about other than they aren't sequels to current gen games. If you took a minute before jumping to your assessment you'd see that my point was the names in your list are obscure. Nintendo or MS could release a similar list, I wouldn't know which was which. That is not to say that they won't be good games. I'm sure there was a similar list of original titles released coming up to the launch of the PS2.

And in fairness Sony does take the angle of producing original ideas, unfortunatly the other devs don'talways share the dream. That's a problem I think/hope that the revolution will address.

flogen

LookingFor wrote:

I also get the impression that PS3 will be the lead platform on a lot of console titles, for third parties.

I don't think that will effect the point being made; if a dev company isn't bothered about doing super-precise physics they just won't do them, regardless of the primary machine they work on.

I think part of interaction is the feedback you get on that. Which something like processing power is directly relevant to.

Once a machine has the power to do what it promises to do then interaction has nothing to do with what's under the hood; I mean, the interaction on a DS is probably better than that of a PS3 because there are more unique ways to interact with it (from a standalone point of view, of course the ps3 is going to have plenty of addons you can buy like eyetoy).

I think on interface, specifically, though, it's easy to overlook the fairly radical push Sony has made with the likes of eyetoy, long before Rev was a twinkle in Nintendo's eye.

According to Nintendo they've been developing the Rev since they GC launched...

And they'll continue to evolve that. Unfortunately the biggest stumbling block for eyetoy right now - asides from technicalities and the cost of infrared cameras if you wanted 3d motion detection etc. - is that it's not a standard part of the machine, it's an optional complementary interface. Sony hasn't made that kind of leap yet, but they certainly haven't neglected that area either.

Yeah; the original rumours that the 360 would ship with a camera showed promise like this, and it does cause some problems.
IMO Nintendo face their own depending on the amount of extra connections they create for the revmote... I hope they carefully licence them and don't end up with each game made having a completely different addon controller... too many extras and the machine will flop, regardless of its standalone price.

So now original IPs are destined to obscurity? Seriously, publishers can't win. Take some interest in them, and maybe they'll provide more. All I know is that many of the titles I mentioned from Sony are big budget games, and the investment on their part is huge.

I will say, though, that Sony's own portfolio seems more heavily weighted toward original games than the others, at least last time I checked. They're all doing fairly well, though, that I know of (which doesn't cover Nintendo since they've barely announced anything yet).

Frankly the New IP/old IP debate is annoying, who cares if the characters are the same, did they develop the game at all? I mean, GTA 3 is the same basic game as GTA 1 and 2, but there's simply no comparison between the quality of Gameplay; the same goes for the leap made between Super Mario World and Mario 64... same IP, totally different game.

Ronan|Raven

The dreamcast is making a comeback in Japan!

Dont be at yourself

The dreamcast is making a comeback in Japan!

Ah yes, but a game catalogue consisting of 90% hentai will only shift so many machines!

GrumPy

LookingFor wrote:

I don't know if I would. Middleware (AGEIA/Havok) makes it easy to turn things up or down on different platforms. Mark Rein from Epic made the heavy suggestion that they'd be able to get more out of PS3 with regard to physics, in UT2007, for example.

I also get the impression that PS3 will be the lead platform on a lot of console titles, for third parties.

I'm sorry man, but I cannot visualise the two largest third party developers such as EA and ubisoft, making the ps3 version slightly more impressive in regards to realism of physics. And wouldn't the large companys find it easier to get there games to run on xbox, and 360? considering there basically pc arcitechture anyway. Prolly even run smoother, third party games, till they fully use the cell correctly. And thats only if they intend too. I know if I was head of activision/ea etc... I wouln't be telling my workers to spend more time on the ps3 versions physics engine because they could.

Dont be at yourself

The largest companies like EA extensively use middleware (didn't they buy renderware or something a while back?) which makes cross-platform development less of a pain. That said, the XBox has quite a power advantage in the last round, and yet there was very little to seperate multi-platform games, as, inevitably, games would need to be designed with less powerful PS2 in mind, market-leader as it was.

Perhaps if PS3 steals a significant lead from the 360, things will be different this time.

impr0v

sprinkles wrote:

PS: Didn anyone lese notice the demo shown in the first post was shown on a samsung tv. And here I was thinking the Bravia was the best

OT but Samsung TeeVees and Sony's Bravia line are made in a joint-owned factory in Korea, which they are currently expanding.

Link

Vegeta

Irish GrumPy wrote:

I'm sorry man, but I cannot visualise the two largest third party developers such as EA and ubisoft, making the ps3 version slightly more impressive in regards to realism of physics. And wouldn't the large companys find it easier to get there games to run on xbox, and 360? considering there basically pc arcitechture anyway. Prolly even run smoother, third party games, till they fully use the cell correctly. And thats only if they intend too. I know if I was head of activision/ea etc... I wouln't be telling my workers to spend more time on the ps3 versions physics engine because they could.

Lucky you're not the head of ea or activision, Sony are current market leaders in the industry. Why would you tell your devs not to work on the market leaders hardware, doesn't make any business sense.

You're obviously a fan of xbox + 360 which is cool as I also enjoy some games on those consoles but the PS3 will have features that the 360 wont have. Just like the xbox had better graphics n textures as compared to the PS2 counter parts.

Think of PC games aswell do developers design games so they will run identically on everyones PC, NO they allow them to be run at various settings depending on hardware installed.

Also Oblivion on the 360 is already pushing the system, the frame rate issues, the slow down if you have loads of items in your inventory. The fact they removed some lighting features in the game. It does look really nice in a town when there is no loadin but in the outside world on a fast horse then problems become very clear.

tallaghtdave

i still think microsoft has adult gaming conqured.
but we will have to see for ourselfs .
im always wondering to they LEAK footage on purpose.accidently lol.
the wait in on,

flogen

Irish GrumPy wrote:

I'm sorry man, but I cannot visualise the two largest third party developers such as EA and ubisoft, making the ps3 version slightly more impressive in regards to realism of physics. And wouldn't the large companys find it easier to get there games to run on xbox, and 360? considering there basically pc arcitechture anyway. Prolly even run smoother, third party games, till they fully use the cell correctly. And thats only if they intend too. I know if I was head of activision/ea etc... I wouln't be telling my workers to spend more time on the ps3 versions physics engine because they could.

I think EA will go to the money, ie the most popular machine... I think for a year or two that won't be too clear cut but at the same time I don't think either machine will be very different from each other.

In fairness to Ubisoft, they're a little bit more considerate when it comes to games than EA; take the new Splinter Cell for example where they have three seperate teams working on the nextgen, oldgen and handheld versions of the game, rather than making lazy ports.

flogen

Vegeta wrote:

Also Oblivion on the 360 is already pushing the system, the frame rate issues, the slow down if you have loads of items in your inventory. The fact they removed some lighting features in the game. It does look really nice in a town when there is no loadin but in the outside world on a fast horse then problems become very clear.

I don't know enough to say that it's the case here but a lot of those types of issues in the oldgen were overcome with inventive coding, I'd be surprised if the xbox360 has peaked this early as most consoles don't show their best work until the last 2 years of their lifespan.

GrumPy

flogen wrote:

I think EA will go to the money, ie the most popular machine...

EA will go with EVERY machine.... next gen bond/potter/fifa will be on ps3/rev/360 and look almost identical.

GrumPy

Vegeta wrote:

Lucky you're not the head of ea or activision, Sony are current market leaders in the industry. Why would you tell your devs not to work on the market leaders hardware, doesn't make any business sense.

EA are money hungry animals. They will release a multiplatform game on the snes if they thought it was viable. My point was, they make a game, say fifa 2007, they release it on ps2, ps3, xbox, xbox 360, rev, psp, pc and god knows.

Unlike ubisoft, the'll go for the aul' port trick, and the 360/ps3/and rev version will all look, and run identical in almost all cases bar the rev, as HD wont happen. Either way, I still cant see EA/activision/ubisoft, three of the biggest third party developers in the industry, making the ball physics in fifa look, and act more realistically on the ps3, then the 360 and rev counter parts, simply because the cell can kick out better physics.

flogen

Irish GrumPy wrote:

EA will go with EVERY machine.... next gen bond/potter/fifa will be on ps3/rev/360 and look almost identical.

But they'll design a game to the level of the biggest seller and then make whatever adjustments the HAVE to make for the others, so if the ps3 is the biggest seller and the most powerful, they'll just turn everything down for the 360 version.

I can't wait to see their bullsh*t attempts to phone in revmote support... menu browsing and special "point remote at screen now" attacks

GrumPy

flogen wrote:

But they'll design a game to the level of the biggest seller and then make whatever adjustments the HAVE to make for the others, so if the ps3 is the biggest seller and the most powerful, they'll just turn everything down for the 360 version.

I can't wait to see their bullsh*t attempts to phone in revmote support... menu browsing and special "point remote at screen now" attacks

wrong, the'll make it run on the 360 first (because its less powerful) , and the ps3 version will look identical.

Think black on the current gen, looks the same on the xbox, as ps2, because it was designed with the least powerful console in mind. EA again mind you.

Vegeta

flogen wrote:

But they'll design a game to the level of the biggest seller and then make whatever adjustments the HAVE to make for the others, so if the ps3 is the biggest seller and the most powerful, they'll just turn everything down for the 360 version.

I can't wait to see their bullsh*t attempts to phone in revmote support... menu browsing and special "point remote at screen now" attacks

I agree here I think they will develop for most popular machine as they are money hungry and just turn it down for everything else

steviec

In the case of multiplatform games I'd say PS3 and 360 will be almost identical. PS3 might have a smoother framerate, better draw distance, things like that, but I don't see major wholesale changes to any games. I'll be interested to see how they handle revolution conversions though. EA were about the only company left who still released gamecube ports of multiplatform games in this generation, if the rev doesn't sell well it may not be viable to make a port at all.

Squaddy

Irish GrumPy wrote:

wrong, the'll make it run on the 360 first (because its less powerful) , and the ps3 version will look identical.

Think black on the current gen, looks the same on the xbox, as ps2, because it was designed with the least powerful console in mind. EA again mind you.

I have to agree with Grumpy here. guys dont forget its EA.

Lets stop thinking about the games point of view for a sec, ok, Ea are a business and like all businesses they have to maximise profit and cut costs where its possible (and as we know it they do a lot of it!) so if they develop a game and they launch it on all consoles. Lets just say they launch it on the 360 first (which is less powerful than the PS3 so pep say we dont know yet) I doubt they will make it better for the PS3 costing more money and discriminating customers that own 360, Revolution etc.

People are going to buy the game anyway becausse its Ea.

Correct me if im wrong....

LookingFor

flogen wrote:

I don't think that will effect the point being made; if a dev company isn't bothered about doing super-precise physics they just won't do them, regardless of the primary machine they work on.

Lead platforms tend to define the technical direction games go in. PS3 games will likely skew toward the "physics heavy".

flogen wrote:

According to Nintendo they've been developing the Rev since they GC launched...

And Sony was working on eyetoy for some years in advance of its 2003 release. We could go back and forth on this, both have R&Ded on interface for a long time.

Irish GrumPy wrote:

I'm sorry man, but I cannot visualise the two largest third party developers such as EA and ubisoft, making the ps3 version slightly more impressive in regards to realism of physics.

The likes of Ubi are already doing it for bloody PhysX chips, with an install base in the single-digit thousands, probably - I think they'll find more incentive in the PS3 install base to at least do likewise! (Have a look at AGEIA's site for a look at optimisations done for GRAW on PC with and without the PhysX card). In fact, work done in PC versions of games to support things like PhysX or HavokFX could transfer over to PS3 quite well, and vice versa.

Irish GrumPy wrote:

And wouldn't the large companys find it easier to get there games to run on xbox, and 360? considering there basically pc arcitechture anyway.

They're not, though. 360's CPU carries many of the same pitfalls as PS3's, even if not the same scale of parallelism to contend with.

360 is easier to dev for, or at least that seems to be the impression given, but that's not solely a determining factor in what a lead platform is or isn't. (Obviously, PS2 was a bitch to code for, but it was by far and away the lead platform of choice).

Irish GrumPy wrote:

I wouln't be telling my workers to spend more time on the ps3 versions physics engine because they could.

Most companies will use multiplatform middleware - the likes of AGEIA and Havok will spend the time on the individual engines on each platform. Although I guess later on, some enterprising companies will go beyond that and code their own, as middleware is rarely wholly optimal for a specific platform.

projectmayhem

LookingFor wrote:

Most companies will use multiplatform middleware - the likes of AGEIA and Havok will spend the time on the individual engines on each platform. Although I guess later on, some enterprising companies will go beyond that and code their own, as middleware is rarely wholly optimal for a specific platform.

spot on. EA and Ubisoft have bought up licesnes for havok, ageia and renderware for next gen whereas sony's AAA devs like rockstar and guerilla have been given extra cash injection from sony to work on custom engines.

(to avoid any confusion i said AAA devs, not devs owned by sony)

LookingFor

projectmayhem wrote:

whereas sony's AAA devs like rockstar and guerilla have been given extra cash injection from sony to work on custom engines.

I don't know about them specifically. I think most including the AAA devs will use middleware starting out also. I could just see some later on crafting a custom one - but of course, AGEIA and Havok will always be improving theirs too, which might negate the need for custom engines. I only mentioned that because looking at GDC presentations by Sony and AGEIA on their PS3 library, it seems to be held back a bit by legacy and compatability issues. But it still offers a great capability right now, and I'm sure most devs are satisfied with that, for now.

Also, it's worth noting that Sony has paid for every PS3 developer to be able to use Havok and AGEIA, for free. You can rarely beat free Also a good example of how important Sony sees physics for PS3 games.

MrPinK

Irish GrumPy wrote:

Think black on the current gen, looks the same on the xbox, as ps2, because it was designed with the least powerful console in mind. EA again mind you.

That example can also be used to support the other arguement, that the games where designed for the best selling console and ported as-is to the rest.

andy1249

To clarify for everyone ,

All 3 major consoles have the processors made by IBM.

360 is a 3 core power pc processor ,
PS3 is a 9 core power pc processor ,
Nintendo is also a version of the power pc processor ,

The structure is slightly different for each one , as is the parallism required to take maximum advantage , however the underlying instruction set is the same.

Should a developer so wish , a release version for all 3 consoles is easy , taking maximum advantage of each processor though , is not!
It is highly likely that developers will code for the lowest common denominator and leave both 360 and Cell processors massively underused. Only exclusive titles on each platform are likely to take full advantage of extra hardware.

It was posted earlier that both Xbox's had PC architecture , not so , only the first had PC architecture , Intel lost the gig for the second Xbox .

MrPinK

andy1249 wrote:

PS3 is a 9 core power pc processor

If I can be a bit pedantic for a moment, the PS3 is really only 8 core as only 7 of the SPE's are used.

andy1249

The main core plus 8 support cores = 9 , read up some more man !!:)

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars

Quote , General purpose powerpc processor connected to 8 special purpose DSP cores !!

Would I lead you astray ??

MrPinK

Yes, the cell processor has 8 SPE's. However, the one in the PS3 will only be using 7 of them, to increase manufacturing yield. By only using 7 they can still use the chip even if one of the SPE's has a manufacturing defect.

satchmo

Actually production PS3s are only going to have 6 SPUs available to developers. The other SPU is being reserved by the system for OS functions.

Vyse

Whether multi-platform development teams develop for the market leader or the easiest-to-develop for system is anyones guess. You could make arguments either way. So unless you're actually developing a game for the PS3 and XBox360 you're flying blind with your argument. For all we know deifferent development studios might take different approaches.

We'll just have to wait and see how the PS3 and XBox360 comapre for cross platform development when the games are actually playable. My guess is that there will be very little noticable difference. The gap between the 360 and PS3 is not near as big as that between the PS2 and XBox

Retr0gamer

projectmayhem wrote:

spot on. EA and Ubisoft have bought up licesnes for havok, ageia and renderware for next gen whereas sony's AAA devs like rockstar and guerilla have been given extra cash injection from sony to work on custom engines.

(to avoid any confusion i said AAA devs, not devs owned by sony)

Hold on a minute. When have Guerilla ever been considered AAA?

projectmayhem

LookingFor wrote:

Also, it's worth noting that Sony has paid for every PS3 developer to be able to use Havok and AGEIA, for free. You can rarely beat free Also a good example of how important Sony sees physics for PS3 games.

renderware also.

Retr0gamer wrote:

Hold on a minute. When have Guerilla ever been considered AAA?

lol
i guess sony thought so when they paid them to reserve their engine for ps2... and then subsequently bought out the company (uber-retort, biatch!)