Kaz Hirai (SCEA) Interview - 1up/EGM

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was some other reference where they said keyboard and mouse would only be for text input, not game control.

Keyboard and mice are cheap now so there's no economic obstacle to people buying them if they're serious.

I would submit that people who play online and especially people who would play in online competitions, are sufficiently hardcore that most if not all would get KB/MS if indeed EA held some kind of money competition for TW.

In fact, I would guess that you'd have to pay in the first place in order to play in such competitions.

I think it's not a concern about the level playing field so much as laziness. Maybe it's not that trivial as you would think to add KB/MS support.
 
jvd said:
Shifty how about games ? You can allways takl about games or thier online plans .
Talk of games would be apart of the overall showing of course, but remember Sony don't do games. They do hardware. When have Sony ever stood up and said 'we're bringing you this great game'? They show tech demos, and get other studios to showcase what THEY are doing game wise. Sony aren't going to trumpet the games they're producing as they don't much produce any - at least it isn't a focus. As for online they've talked of it before, what they want to see. I think it's just a case of wait and see. Again though, they're not likely to say 'we're doing this great software for online' because they do hardware. Like PSP. They said all it's capabilities, and what they wanted to se eon it, but never said much about how they were going to deliver. In that respect I think they make it up as they go along, in both good and bad ways. eg. For PS2 they talked of wonderful online which never materialised, but I think KK was hoping for massive broadband penetration. I think he's not very realistic sometimes and his dreams aren't realisable.

As long as they don't let kk talk though i'm fine with whatever the rest of sony says . KK was bashing ms again in egm .
Yeah, he's turned sour I think. I don't remember him being so negative about the competition before. Maybe he was and I just didn't notice? They should talk about their own hardware. Though the media are certainly asking antagonisitic questions to promote a 'console war' as that sounds more dramatic then 'two or three happily cohabiting non-exclusive console systems' ;)
 
Just to clarify

1080p on ps3 is not a negative its just not as useful as some people think. 720p is a more useful resolution in general to aim for as well as 1080i. Of course the ps3 can do those resolutions so its a wash of an argument.

Bluetooth etc in a console - is definitely a benefit but not necessarily one for gaming... depends on the game and the max amount of inputs...

xbox live is an unmitigated benefit which really has no equal in the console space and adds to gameplay value... anyone arguing less is fooling themselves. Now with xbox live silver, it has NO downsides.

gigabit ethernet - at home is nice but then again everything you connect to has to have it too... its not a bad thing to have but its not really necessary... however 100 megabit lan port is pretty standard and nearly ALL non-WAN devices support it.

*sigh* this whole argument is silly and really boring now
 
blakjedi said:
Just to clarify

1080p on ps3 is not a negative its just not as useful as some people think. 720p is a more useful resolution in general to aim for as well as 1080i. Of course the ps3 can do those resolutions so its a wash of an argument.

You are the one extending this argument with your "clarification". Or is it your continued insistence that people should look at things your way? There will be people who have as good reasons to believe that 1080p is desirable, as you do otherwise. You should respect that.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Playing online with a PS2 is free as for MS its not. ;)

True, but there are negatives to that also. Lack of leaderboards and clanstats. LAck of free maps and content. LAck of patching, once an exploit is found it's game over. Aside from a few titles that do memory card patches. Dial-up players lagging out games.

I'm not saying the PS2 is awful online. But if you're like me and play online every night the xbox has no equal right now. Aside from getting a PC and somehow convincing every PC player to get broadband and run the same VOip program.

Its funny to hear people talk about their 80inch plasma HDTV omega supreme that does 2160pi and paid $3000 for it but they complain about the $4.20 a month for live.
 
wco81 said:
I think it's not a concern about the level playing field so much as laziness. Maybe it's not that trivial as you would think to add KB/MS support.

This is pretty far off the mark IMO.

"Laziness" is not the issue at hand.

1. Hardcore gamers (= us) really need to step back and look at online gaming from a mass market perspective. A level playing field where EVERYONE is playing on the same basic equipment makes things more fair.

We all know if you give 1 guy a KB/MS and everyone else a gamepad the KB/MS player is going to cream them.

That is NOT fun, and that is not a level playing field.

2. Many gamers would have difficulty setting up a KB/MS in their living room in a comfortable position. Most living rooms are not setup for a desk 3 feet in front of the TV.

The only way to guarantee *all gamers* enjoy the same experience is to require the same input device. Giving a certain segment of gamers far superior controls would make online game extremely unbalanced. You would have a 5-10% of hard core gamers dominating the game.

If you have never played Counter Strike before, give it a try on an old map like Dust or Italy or Aztec. And do so with a gamepad and not a KB/MS.

See how long you think that is "fun".

And that is what would happen online. It is a can of worms SOMEONE will open at some time or another, but it will take a lot of time, money, and effort to safe guard the experience.

Which begs the question: Consoles are about sitting in your living room, on a couch, playing games with friends and having fun. Why turn it into a PC experience that will ultimately just turn away casual gamers?

Giving hardcore gamers a further edge against casuals only widens the gap in online play. That is bad from a financial AND community perspective. So far console games have been safe against the rampant cheating, hacking, and exploiting of PC games.

No one likes a cheater. And I am sure a server of 50 players in PDZ is not going to appreciate the guy with the KB/MS who has perfect aim and lightening fast reflexes and can simply out move, out turn, and out shoot everyone.

That is no fun. And no fun = less sales. So as much as *I* would like a KB/MS, I don't see the logic in pandering to the 5-10% of hardcore gamers when it could seriously unbalance the games and make them less fun.

Basically, as a hardcore gamer who has been ranked fairly high in the games he plays, I can say this *is* a balance issue. You give me a KB/MS in Halo 3 or PDZ and I will be near untouchable against gamepad users. That is no fun for the casual gamer.

Laziness has nothing to do with it.
 
pozer said:
Its funny to hear people talk about their 80inch plasma DTV omega supreme that does 2160pi and paid $3000 for it but they complain about the $4.20 a month for live

Ha! I actually agree with that. 50 or 60 dollars a year is not really all that bad. I agree with your whole post. I just wanted to give the other side a voice.
 
jvd said:
As long as they don't let kk talk though i'm fine with whatever the rest of sony says . KK was bashing ms again in egm .
Even if he is probably the only person who knows what's up with the PS3? Oh yes, please Kutaragi, don't speak again, you might make one negative comment about Microsoft.

(I don't think Kutaragi should be taking as many shots at the Xbox360 or Microsoft. He should pull an Allard and state that his vision with the PS3 is to have Allard's resignation papers in his office.)
 
PC-Engine said:
Your gaming environment must look like a trash dump. :LOL: ;)
I usually don't leave everything hooked up, but as anyone who keeps four controllers plugged in knows--there's a lot people keep plugged in. ...and yet they usually wrap their controllers up and store them in a shelf underneath, or off to the side, or whatever... It's business as usual, except it can also be "business as usual" with a few extra hot-swappable devices as well. (Plugging in your MP3 player, using a USB key for saved games that you can get/modify from your PC as well...)

The move to wireless is nice, but it's not necessarily an expense everyone is going to be comfortable with, care about, etc. (And other reasons people may not care for wireless, since as not bothering with charging/batteries, having interference issues, etc.) As well, third parties could certainly keep on with good wired controllers, especially since USB would allow them to be universally shared between all the consoles and PC, and so have a more universal appeal--especially since wireless controllers are unlikely to be as universally supported. (Not to mention cost savings for the consumer.) Some regular controllers could also be assumed to occupy USB slots, then, and four ports is already the accepted standard.

BTW I could hook up a bunch of stupid sh*t too like fans, chargers, led lights, but that doesn't make it better, it just makes it dumb and dumber. ;) :LOL:

I guess you are feeling pretty special because SONY gave you 6 USB ports to masturbate with. ;) :LOL:
Do you honestly understand how much of an ass you sound like? ALL of the time?

(Wait, I'm forgetting the obsessive emoticons: :p :p :LOL: :LOL: ;) :rolleyes: :oops: :p )

I already covered the grounds, and "4 ports" is considered a simple standard at this point. (Two, as I recall, is grounds for much complaint, despite 4-player local multiplayer games still being in the vast minority of overall console games.) So what makes the new "two above standard" become LOL WHY SONEE GIV U SICKS PORTS LOLZ DUMASES!!

?

Your particular brand of obsession and insanity is distinctly unamusing. Please, if you can, keep it in your pants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, on to saner topics: the keyboard/mouse "thang".

It does, IMHO, provide HUGE benefits in certain games--and yes--I can imagine it and other devices letting people cream those who use only a gamepad--but I'm not one to want to see limitations on imput devices; I want to see all options supported.

This is especially important going into next generation, as the lines are getting further blurred--as much as I'd rather sit on a couch and play console games now, next gen's consoles may not line up as well with my TV. There's quality to be had, and good HDTV's are still pretty expensive, while the consoles themselves will be out soon--and able to be played on monitors right out of the box, by most accounts. As well, the PC is the device that sits closest to your networking equipment, and at this point online multiplayer is more likely to go on than locally (and local play is more likely to involve two people--who don't have space issues even around a computer desk--or LANning with easily-portable LCD monitors as opposed to split-screen woes, and that means "sitting at tables" by and large...), so all of this points toward removing certain stigmas associated with console gaming. In a way, they'll start making better partners for your PC and its' equipment than by a living room toy until the living room actually catches up. (For now, HDTV's are way less prevalent than capable monitors, living rooms are less likely to be near a networking source or have other equipment that cares about being networked.) And while this situation will change as we go along, it's kind of ironic to me that the perceived "fight for the living room" will for many people actually move the machine OUT of the living room for a while. ;)

At any rate, what this means for keyboards, mice, et al is simply that I'm far more likely to have them at hand--and a simple USB switchbox could let me use whatever I want, easily, for console and PC alike. I don't give a rat's ass about FPSes for console currently (as well as RTSes [which hardly exist anyway, so that doesn't matter], flight games [as w/o a stick I'm just going to be frustrated and/or bored], and MMO's [where I need to chat]) but that situation instantly changes if I have what I need at hand. And since I also want to see PC and console gaming communities able to play and compete on the same server, it will also let anyone equalize whatever "input device unbalance" factors they want to.

I'm certainly fine with developers also letting "gamepad only" servers exist and keep "level playing grounds" for everyone at the skill level they want to sit at--but in the end I want gamers of all stripes able to play with each other if they want and not feel like as many "exclusive communities" must exist. Convergence will still move along on its merry way, and keeping that in mind, the more options we have now and continue to have as we move along, the better off we can make it for everyone.
 
Surprised a lot of people here think 1080p is going to be difficult for developers to include in their games on the PS3, when most PC games can run at a similar 1600x1200 resolution, and has this as an OPTION even if MOST people do not have a monitor that supports that resolution.

Of course I never seen on a forum anywhere people arguing against PC games having this resolution supported, based on the adoption rate of 1600x1200 monitors in the PC world. Why would they? It like saying options should only be supported by what's accepted by the majority. To me 1080p support, is a reason to go out and get a 1080p TV.

What's next? The PS3 has too many network ports, and/or too many USB ports?
 
Edge said:
To me 1080p support, is a reason to go out and get a 1080p TV.

I completely agree that having the option of 1080p is great. What bothers me though is that this gen I'm likely going to have to choose between online gaming with the Xbox, OR 1080p. And 1080p without online isn't better than 1080i WITH online, IMO. Does anyone disagree?

Sony have done their best to downplay online gaming a number of times. This naturally makes me feel that they don't have my wishes to play online at heart. I'm sure they will have something in the way of online support, but I'm willing to go on the record say that it won't be better than Microsofts.
 
PARANOiA said:
I completely agree that having the option of 1080p is great. What bothers me though is that this gen I'm likely going to have to choose between online gaming with the Xbox, OR 1080p.

That's a false choice. You can play online with PS2 and no doubt there will be plenty of PS3 online games.

Way more than there will probably be 1080p PS3 games, unless the RSX/Cell combo is way more capable than people are expecting.

BTW, PS3 games have leaderboards, messaging, clans and all the niceties of XBL without paying. Is it as nice? Probably not but it doesn't cost extra either.
 
mckmas8808 said:
please tell me you are kidding
either that or you have been exposed to moronic Xbox owners.

I wish I was playing. I never heard someone say I'm an xbox fan and then turn around and say something so true in Sony's favor like NucNavST3 did. He actually told people about a 1080p TV that is being sold for under $2000. I still can't believe it. He's a good guy.


Hey ....I said I like the Blu Ray idea. :p :D
 
Edge said:
Surprised a lot of people here think 1080p is going to be difficult for developers to include in their games on the PS3, when most PC games can run at a similar 1600x1200 resolution, and has this as an OPTION even if MOST people do not have a monitor that supports that resolution.
That only makes sense if you presume that today's PC games are accurate exemplars of the demand of future console games. But that's a totally unfounded assumption.
 
wco81 said:
PARANOiA said:
I completely agree that having the option of 1080p is great. What bothers me though is that this gen I'm likely going to have to choose between online gaming with the Xbox, OR 1080p.

That's a false choice. You can play online with PS2 and no doubt there will be plenty of PS3 online games.

Let me put it this way: if I asked you which console this gen was best to go online with, and you said PS2, I'd think you had rocks in your head. Surely I'm not in the minority here?

Since Sony have made no efforts to show me that they've improved this at all (in fact, they've downplayed online gaming a number of times), i think it's reasonable to assume next gen will be the same.
 
onanie said:
....

You are the one extending this argument with your "clarification". Or is it your continued insistence that people should look at things your way? There will be people who have as good reasons to believe that 1080p is desirable, as you do otherwise. You should respect that.

Nobody is arguing that 1080P is not a nice option (well at least I'm not) but is it feasible to make most games on the PS3 at 1080P :?:

THAT is my question, yet nobody has given a definitive answer. If the devs can not easily produce well playing/looking games at 1080P then the whole fact that the output device supports it is moot. That is why 720P seems like the most productive choice. Xenos can do 1080P also but MS choose to have the output device not support it.

the games can (evidently) function at a high graphical output with AA on and look and play great on these 2 new machines at 720P.

If you can not keep it running at a a nice FPS with great textures, at 1080P, what's the point in us even discussing it or Sony suggesting it will be "standard output"?

I'm willing to guess that a majority of time 1080P will be used only with movies, not games.


If the devs come on this board in 2 months and say, "hey this PS3 is really something and everything that we want to do at 720p we can do just as well with very low impact, at 1080P so we are going to always make our games at 1080P", then I will readily admit that I am mistaken. :oops: :D
 
Edge said:
Surprised a lot of people here think 1080p is going to be difficult for developers to include in their games on the PS3, when most PC games can run at a similar 1600x1200 resolution, and has this as an OPTION even if MOST people do not have a monitor that supports that resolution.

It wont be as easy as you suggest. Comparing current PC games and how they run at 1600x1200 is really shaky ground to make this analogy.

To put it in perspective, I remember when it was cool to run Quake at 1600x1200 with the TNT2. By the reasoning above the PS, N64, PS2, Xbox, etc... should have all easily supported 1080p but we know that is not the case. Heck, you take the last new game the TNT2 could run and you would be LUCKY to get it to run smoothly at 640x480!

Further, the issue is not directly comparable. Most gamers are expecting a significant leap over today's PC games which are, for the most part, DX8 games with some DX9 features tossed in. It would be fair to say most gamers would be dissappointed.

1080p is more pixels than 1600x1200 (~8% more). So that requires even more performance.

The problem is running an advanced game with a lot of geometry, large view distance, advanced shaders, HDR, lots of AA, AF, dynamic lighting and shadowing, and other advanced rendering tricks. At low resolutions any single bottleneck can often be overlooked. But at high resolutions everything is so close to maxed out it only takes one under performing feature (shading, fillrate, bandwidth, etc) to make a significant performance impact.

While I have no doubt that some games may go the 1080p route, I seriously doubt many AAA titles will, for the very reason that 1080p means you have to reduce shader complexity (2x the pixels to shade in 1080p over 1080i and 720p).

You have to be kind of nuts to take a 50% performance hit for a feature (1080p resolution) that a mere fraction of the market will have. Considering the HD market overall is very small (10M in 2004 in the US, estimated 15M in 2005, almost 0 of those having 1080p) it seems like VERY BAD resource management to support 1080p for a business perspective.

You can get a more detailed game at 1080i/720p which also happens to be a bigger install base than 1080p.

1080p is a nice option for non-graphically advanced games and possibly for the end of the PS3 life cycle. But considering the performance hit the G70 takes at higher resolutions with AA (~40% in modern games) I expect 1080p to be much like HD on the Xbox--RARE with spotty support.

It is a nice feature, but I am pretty convinced that HD is overblown for this gen, much like Online this gen. Not that online was bad this gen--it was great. But from a market perspective, it only applies to a certain early adopter/hard core segment. HD sales are still in their infancy in the US and nearly non-existant in Europe.

Much like online has progressed to ~215M broadband accounts world wide and can now be considered a mainstream feature, HD is more buzz now and will be more substance in the next next-gen. Until then those of us with Monitors and HD displays will get to enjoy the future NOW. Much like Live and Network Adapter customers got to enjoy online gaming long before it will hit mainstream console gaming with the 360.

Overall 1080p is a nice option, but a useless on IMO in most situations per market and performance reasons. Basically why make a game at 1080p when you can make it at 720p and look 2x as good AND have more people appreciate it?
 
PARANOiA said:
wco81 said:
PARANOiA said:
I completely agree that having the option of 1080p is great. What bothers me though is that this gen I'm likely going to have to choose between online gaming with the Xbox, OR 1080p.

That's a false choice. You can play online with PS2 and no doubt there will be plenty of PS3 online games.

Let me put it this way: if I asked you which console this gen was best to go online with, and you said PS2, I'd think you had rocks in your head. Surely I'm not in the minority here?

It's been better for me because in the 3 years since it went online, I spent $40 for the Network Adapter. Period.

And in those 3 years, I played Madden more than any other console online game so it was exclusively online on the PS2 for two years. So it was better for me.

And I didn't have to give my credit card number or other personal info. to go online, so again, better for me.
 
> "What bothers me though is that this gen I'm likely going to have to choose between online gaming with the Xbox, OR 1080p."

If you really believe that, then get yourself a X360, while the rest of us get a PS3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top