Console Performance - Now or Later

[Rockster]

Ok, but with someone like you who doesn't have the patience to keep his mind focussed past the first trwo sentences of an already short post, I don't think any console is going to do.

I read the whole post. Just wanted to use part of it for my own evil purposes.

 

[joker454]

We won't see games that really use PS3's full grunt until "four, five or six years down the line", says SCE president HIRAI.

That is only an advantage when you don't have competing consoles that are cake to develop for. If PS3 is relying on games 4+ years down the road to show what it can do, then they have all but given away this generation to Microsoft and Nintendo, since both of those machines were able to come out strong from day one. In Nintendo's case because its basically a tweaked Gamecube which many are familiar with, and in Microsofts case because they kiss developer ass and make our lives easy with killer tools, comfy dev environments, fast compilers and speedy linkers. Plus, in 4+ years people are going to be less willing to pay $60 for a PS3 game when Xbox 720 (or whatever the hell it will be called) games are available for the same price and will look way better.

You know, I also recently read some other article from some other Sony dude claiming that tricky PS3 development is good. Honestly, some of these Sony bigwigs really just need to keep their mouths closed, they aren't helping the situation.

 

[RobertR1]

Actually I can undestand Sony. After all it'll take time for "the PS3 to do 4D!"

 

[one]

The knowledge was there, developers just chose performance first. Near the end, performance always gets dropped because devs need to sacrifice something so they can make a game that looks interesting to a buyer, and not the same thing they did the last time.

What do you think did a title such as GT4 or God of War 2 sacrifice?

That is only an advantage when you don't have competing consoles that are cake to develop for. If PS3 is relying on games 4+ years down the road to show what it can do, then they have all but given away this generation to Microsoft and Nintendo, since both of those machines were able to come out strong from day one. In Nintendo's case because its basically a tweaked Gamecube which many are familiar with, and in Microsofts case because they kiss developer ass and make our lives easy with killer tools, comfy dev environments, fast compilers and speedy linkers. Plus, in 4+ years people are going to be less willing to pay $60 for a PS3 game when Xbox 720 (or whatever the hell it will be called) games are available for the same price and will look way better.

I have no idea why you stick to the "4+ years" figure when they are talking about "PS3's full grunt", it's not like you won't see any improvement until full 4 years pass. It'll be exponentially more difficult to exploit more performance as you reach 100%. Then again, I'd like to know how you feel about the room for improvement in Wii and Xbox 360.

 

[joker454]

I have no idea why you stick to the "4+ years" figure when they are talking about "PS3's full grunt", it's not like you won't see any improvement until full 4 years pass. It'll be exponentially more difficult to exploit more performance as you reach 100%. Then again, I'd like to know how you feel about the room for improvement in Wii and Xbox 360.

Obviously all hardware has room for improvement. In this case though I'm merely quoting what that dude was saying. Personally, I think saying things like that publicly is just plain dumb. I mean, these guys are paid a fortune in salary, can't they think of something more positive to say? Alluding to "you'll have to wait to see PS3's power" is probably the last thing a PS3 owner wants to hear right about now.

To steal a quote from Glenngary Glen Ross, "what you are hired for is to help us....not to fuck us up". Bottom line, the top brass needs to either say things that are helpful, or they need to put a sock in it.

 

[Scott_Arm]

What do you think did a title such as GT4 or God of War 2 sacrifice?

Nothing really. I just think they have really good art direction. I don't believe there was any magical untapped potential that they discovered so late in the PS2s cycle.

 

[djskribbles]

good art direction can only go so far. God of War II looks better than God of War I and they both have the same art direction. God of War II looks amazing considering its a PS2 game.

 

[one]

Obviously all hardware has room for improvement. In this case though I'm merely quoting what that dude was saying. Personally, I think saying things like that publicly is just plain dumb. I mean, these guys are paid a fortune in salary, can't they think of something more positive to say? Alluding to "you'll have to wait to see PS3's power" is probably the last thing a PS3 owner wants to hear right about now.

Probably they want you not to trade in your PS3 yet Or just a teasing message like this:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/regarding-ffvii/kaz-hirai-says-the-best-is-yet-to-come-295395.php

 

[Scott_Arm]

good art direction can only go so far. God of War II looks better than God of War I and they both have the same art direction. God of War II looks amazing considering its a PS2 game.

I haven't tried God of War 2 yet. Waiting for my friend to pick it up, because I don't have a PS2.

I still think after a certain point, the idea of untapped potential is a little overused. If anything, the developers just become more efficient at using the system because they understand what works and what doesn't from previous titles they've worked on. It's not so much a matter of, there's X amount of processing power we didn't use in game 1, as it is that they've used the same processing power a little bit better. Or they use visual effects that are not necessarily more intensive, but produce more visual flair. Better art assets because of bigger budget. There are a lot of reasons why a game can look better.

I think the case of the PS3 right now, is there probably is some processing power that is not being used, and some that is being used inefficiently. When teams start releasing their 2nd titles, you'll see the PS3 being used at very close to it's optimal capacity. Everything after that will be smarter use of assets and effects, for the most part, and not necessarily using any more processing power.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The development cycle of a modern game is very close to 5 years.

heh no, unless you are counting from the time someone originally thought up the idea for the game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

To steal a quote from Glenngary Glen Ross, "what you are hired for is to help us....not to fuck us up". Bottom line, the top brass needs to either say things that are helpful, or they need to put a sock in it.

Very true sentiments, but I think what they were trying to do was say "You think PS3 is good already, but it gets even better!" It's not like PS3 isn't matching the competition (give or take a bit) at the moment. Seems to me what they're trying to sell is a console that's good enough now, but will be gobsmackinglysuperawesomeuber in a couple of years when the rival looks dated.

No amount of PR promises on their own are going to sell the console now, except to suckers! People buy it for what they can do now. From my POV, LBP looks great. I'll get a PS3 for that now. If someone then tells me LBP2 will be loads better as developers make better use of the hardware, I'll be even happier. I wouldn't buy a machine that looks poor now at the current price with the hopes things would improve. Anyone waiting for things to improve is surely likely to wait to get the console then as well? Who'd buy now at $600 to have it sit on a shelf until software improves and the PS3 can be bought for $250, in quieter, slimline version to boot?!

 

[TheChefO]

will be gobsmackinglysuperawesomeuber in a couple of years when the rival looks dated...

This part is quite funny and really wouldn't do them any good either as it would be a lie.

Best things ps3 has going for it are Sony exclusive games and Bluray.

Sony should let their games speak for themselves. Saying something like "GG is just scratching the surface with KZ2 which is their first run on ps3 hardware" along with showing a new Video/Demo.

They need to get away from using lies/fibs/misleading. Especially now when they have such promising software on the horizon.

Having Bluray become a dominant force would have been good but it seems both formats are content with dragging their feet on releasing titles people actually want to buy and for reasonable prices.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The development cycle of a modern game is very close to 5 years. Which means that no developer would like to use a platform which changes faster than their cycle.

EA must be the best developers in the world then, they only need 1 year to make a game for their biggest titles\sequels\junks\whatever you want to call it. (yes i know initial games took longer).

Anyways, the point is, the dev cycle of a modern game is FAR from 5 years. From when people actually starts coding, to its finished its usually 2 years. 3 years tops, for 99% of the games out there.

 

[psorcerer]

Anyways, the point is, the dev cycle of a modern game is FAR from 5 years. From when people actually starts coding, to its finished its usually 2 years. 3 years tops, for 99% of the games out there.

Let's do some examples: Half Life 2, Stalker, FarCry, Bioshock - more than 5 years in development.
Your ones?

 

[Neb]

Let's do some examples: Half Life 2, Stalker, FarCry, Bioshock - more than 5 years in development.
Your ones?

Err... time in development also depends on the dev team size dedicated to the game. In general Ostepop is right about it being 2-3 years.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Let's do some examples: Half Life 2, Stalker, FarCry, Bioshock - more than 5 years in development.
Your ones?

I could seriously list about 5,000 titles to support my case. (with the help of google ofcourse, i don't know 5,000 game titles.)

Ubisoft usually makes the first game of a franchise in 2-3 years, then all the sequels games usually within 18months. Same goes for allmost every majoy dev\publisher around.

EA games spends 2 years for first title, 12months for sequel.

Try listening to what other people say sometimes, instead of making facts from anecdotal evidence.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Let's do some examples: Half Life 2, Stalker, FarCry, Bioshock - more than 5 years in development.
Your ones?

You might want to check some of those sources. Or perhaps when too human hits the shelves next year you're going to tell me its been 10 years in development.

When asked: How long was BioShock in active production? Ken Levine replied. Full production about two years.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You might want to check some of those sources. Or perhaps when too human hits the shelves next year you're going to tell me its been 10 years in development.

When asked: How long was BioShock in active production? Ken Levine replied. Full production about two years.

Imagine what hes going to say when Duke Nukem: Forever gets released in 2015

 

[psorcerer]

I could seriously list about 5,000 titles to support my case. (with the help of google ofcourse, i don't know 5,000 game titles.)

Try me.

Ubisoft usually makes the first game of a franchise in 2-3 years, then all the sequels games usually within 18months.

Splinter Cell - 2002
Chaos Theory - 2005
Made by Ubi:Montreal which is 3 years for a sequel.

Pandora Tomorrow was made by Ubi:USA

Give me the 18 month sequels from Ubisoft, please.

 

[Neb]

Try me.



Splinter Cell - 2002
Chaos Theory - 2005
Made by Ubi:Montreal which is 3 years for a sequel.

Pandora Tomorrow was made by Ubi:USA

Give me the 18 month sequels from Ubisoft, please.

IF you take some more time to read his comment you would notice he said usually!

Deviations exists.

Ubisoft usually makes the first game of a franchise in 2-3 years, then all the sequels games usually within 18months. Same goes for allmost every majoy dev\publisher around.