http://www.criteriongames.com/podcast/crashfm_15_080111.mp3
Listening now. I have read from others that it is a very interesting listen.
Listening now. I have read from others that it is a very interesting listen.
Criterion Podcast on 360/PS3 development
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
It's not bad. Nothing shocking in there, just stuff we already know. What I can remember (listened to it yesterday or day before):
- average disc speed comparable, advantage to BluRay for constant read-speed (streaming), outer layer of DVD a little faster
- no HDD in 360 is more annoying than most differences
- size of BluRay not that relevant to them, optimising for DVD size has improved (loadtimes on) the PS3 version as well. They don't expect to need more than DVD soon, but someone does point out that they felt the same when DVD was introduced
- 360 tools are good, but PS3 tools aren't bad either, especially since recently there is some good stuff. They are happy to use both to analyse different aspects of their game
- 360 tools are more like what most programmers have been used to from original Xbox and PC, so most programmers tended to want to use those most. At some point I think it was Alex Ward forced everyone to use the PS3 tools, to make sure they would learn to use those too.
- development was mostly in paralel for 360 and PS3, and PS3 was in lead only so much as that they had more PS3 devkits and when they showed code to media or others they'd use the PS3 code
- difference between GPUs not as big as some make it out, and someone points out that especially thanks to flexible SPE use you get very comparable results in all instances (does seem to hint though at the 360's GPU being slightly superior when considered in isolation)
- generally they feel that the difference between 360 and PS3 is too small to really matter. They think that services / software like the IP TV on the 360 in the US or Home on PS3 are more likely to determine the success and failure of either platform than anything in the hardware.
In general they really stress that the two systems are comparable.
- average disc speed comparable, advantage to BluRay for constant read-speed (streaming), outer layer of DVD a little faster
- no HDD in 360 is more annoying than most differences
- size of BluRay not that relevant to them, optimising for DVD size has improved (loadtimes on) the PS3 version as well. They don't expect to need more than DVD soon, but someone does point out that they felt the same when DVD was introduced
- 360 tools are good, but PS3 tools aren't bad either, especially since recently there is some good stuff. They are happy to use both to analyse different aspects of their game
- 360 tools are more like what most programmers have been used to from original Xbox and PC, so most programmers tended to want to use those most. At some point I think it was Alex Ward forced everyone to use the PS3 tools, to make sure they would learn to use those too.
- development was mostly in paralel for 360 and PS3, and PS3 was in lead only so much as that they had more PS3 devkits and when they showed code to media or others they'd use the PS3 code
- difference between GPUs not as big as some make it out, and someone points out that especially thanks to flexible SPE use you get very comparable results in all instances (does seem to hint though at the 360's GPU being slightly superior when considered in isolation)
- generally they feel that the difference between 360 and PS3 is too small to really matter. They think that services / software like the IP TV on the 360 in the US or Home on PS3 are more likely to determine the success and failure of either platform than anything in the hardware.
In general they really stress that the two systems are comparable.
Not sure what you're listening/reading but this podcast confirmed that RSX was the weaker solution in isolation... Also, this podcast confirmed that the Xbox 360 developer tools are potentially favored, as they're similar to what developers are use to, Alex Ward forced people to use the PS3 tools, that should tell you something. The last point I'm not sure that was addressed in the podcast.
Er, because the game has been ported from PS3 to X360, it will obviously not make any use of the abilities of the later where it'd be capable to outdo the Sony console. For example you won't see any difference in textures because there's no higher level to scale back from.
On the other hand it doesn't use Cell's superior computing abilities either, in orther to be able to run on the Xbox. So my point is that while properly made multiplatform games will probably look the same on both consoles, it doesn't neccessarily mean that the two platforms have identical abilities and no game will ever show the difference between them...
On the other hand it doesn't use Cell's superior computing abilities either, in orther to be able to run on the Xbox. So my point is that while properly made multiplatform games will probably look the same on both consoles, it doesn't neccessarily mean that the two platforms have identical abilities and no game will ever show the difference between them...
Betanumerical
Veteran
Burnout hasn't been ported from or to anything. They said they made a multithreaded pc engine, then adapted it to both consoles.
Sigh.
I've never said Sony is abandoning Cell. I have no clue where you got that impression from me. PS4 will obviously ship with some flavor of it. For the rest, here's a quick refresher from my first post on B3D back in December 2006. Someone said this:
"Complaining about having to pre-cull geometry on the SPU before sending to the GPU... The fact that the Cell is good at that should be listed as a strength, but he cites it as a weakness because he does not want to spend the effort to tap that performance."
To which I repiled this:
"Normally i would agree with you. In this case though it's not a strength, its a requirement because you have to do it to help the PS3 keep pace with the 360."
Now, I'll quote from Arwins summary of the podcast a few posts back where he says:
"- difference between GPUs not as big as some make it out, and someone points out that especially thanks to flexible SPE use you get very comparable results in all instances (does seem to hint though at the 360's GPU being slightly superior when considered in isolation)"
Hmm, sound familiar? When I said it over a year I was scorned as a lazy junior charlatan noob. I guess now that PS3 fanboys say it then it must be true. Well whatever. Believe whatever or whomever you want, I really don't care.
Now you're a lazy junior charlatan vet'!
Well, who can take a joker seriously
Anyway, I don't think there is anything really new here. Most of these things have been said before and of course as multiplatform developers they have a balance act to perform when they give interviews so they have to weight ther words carefully...
I would like to repeat :
Thanks again for your honesty and telling the truth then and now.
Mind you, they were a lot more careful in their wordings than I was. I might have been trying to read between the lines too much, and they may well have said this with the intention of pointing out that an advantage of the PS3 is that while both GPUs have weaknesses, the PS3's GPU's weaknesses can be addressed thanks to the power and flexibility of the architecture and the SPEs on the Cell processor.
I'm guessing the truth is probably in between the two. What is clear is that for you personally, they way your game was set up, the weakness of the RSX was very significant and something like Edge would be essential. But it may very well be different for other types of games.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
Wouldn't that mean the people who pushed Cell as vastly superior are owned as well? Of course not. Both systems still have the same strengths they've had all along.
I think the multi-platform devs on here have done a great job. I for one appreciate the honesty.
This is what the PS3 port to 360 advocates seem to never understand, it's great for the PS3 because they don't have to see a superior version on another console but considering how many more copies 360 games typically sell it doesn't make much sense unless you're getting paid by Sony or are just an outright Sony fanboy like Alex Ward.
Yeah, that's great attitude, force crappy tools on people so they "learn" instead of using professional tools and get their jobs done! If someone pulls that BS on me, I'll quit on the spot.
Anyways to address some other questions raised above:
First, I think the comment about Sony dropping Cell for PS4 was mine and it was just a pure speculation based on Sony selling some Cell production facilities. I still stand by that theory but I don't know how that has anything to do with current Cell development and/or performance issues.
Second, as Joker said like billion times RSX needs Cell's help to match 360's GPU. Period. There is no argument left in this. You can try to spin the fact all you want but I think there is more than enough evidence out there to prove it in more or less conclusive manner. People just need to give it up already - RSX is not all Sony hyped it up to be, big whoop.
inefficient
Veteran
That was not the case at all. It was only said that that the team was initially less than enthusiastic to start using the PS3 dev kits because it was something they were not familiar with. They did not say they did not want to use them because they were crappy. Once they started using the PS3 dev kits and doing real development they began to see that the tools were quite good.
Joker has admitted he was new to development of that platform. And that he was still just figuring out how to get big gains from it. And nAo and other have corrected him many times on his false assumptions about RSX.
If build up your case based on one single developers experiences, it just makes it easier for people to dismiss you.
Did you listen to the podcast, carefully? Because it doesn't really sound like it.
I'm under the impression that Barbarian is also a developer with significant PS3 experience.
Interestingly though, he seems to complement joker (duality) since most of the time he complains about Cell as opposed to RSX.
