New interview about Ps3 CM:Dirt

That's not true, since the technically most impressive games on the PS2 were all 1st party/Sony inhouse.

 

You've gotta remember, our biggest enemy here is time. We're working on our third 360 title and second PS3 title, and I already see many things that I know can be improved but we won't have time to do them for our 2008 titles. In fact, I can see improvements that probably won't even make it into our 2009 titles, again because of time. 3 years may seem like a long time, but the reality is that games today have become so complicated that it can take 5 to 6 years to really flesh a game out, and get in all the features/optimizations that we all want.

 

Which is only true if RSX were in a PC. However it's not. For example, on a PC the devs don't know what hardware will be in the PC, so just produce their vertex and pixel shaders and leave the hardware to work through it as fast as possible. If you get idle cycles on the vertex shaders, they're just idle. US get around this problem. However on PS3, because the hardware is known and devs can measure exactly what's going on, they have the option of using idle vertex shaders to do GPGPU work, or anything else. They can seek to shift workload around the available execution units. Then there's the matter of getting RSX to work with Cell. We've seen and heard of marked improvements by using Cell to pre-processor graphics. These techniques weren't available Day 1, and are still in their infancy regards the life cycle. What devs could get out of RSX in those first years of development is well short of what they can manage later on.

I think you just plain underestimate how complex these hardwares are, the limits placed on devs, and the scope for human ingenuity. Even known quantities can go on to do extraordinary things when devs get a chance to explore and play and really push the hardware.

 

Not to mention all the "special" chip-specific features that were hidden by the DX9 API (overhead) on the PC platform, some of those things weren't even accessible on the PC side (mostly for compatibility issues and because DX9 didn't allow it).

 

Of course it is true.

Smaller userbase also leads to smaller budgets for 1st party titles. It also leads to less first party developers. If the Xbox had the same kind of userbase that the PS2 had, you would have seen a lot more first party developers and titles. And that would lead to alot of improvements

 

Is'nt it a catch 22 situation? Small userbase and low budget projects wont increase the userbase as much as big budget games. Look at Sonys PS3 1st-party projects, small userbase but not very low budget projects, in fact the budgets are gigantic on them. How could the userbase grow otherwise?

It's true on the 3rd party titles though where the biggest projects goes to the machine with biggest userbase.

 

I could be wrong but for me I think for 2 reasons you will see a bigger jump in PS3 games in the future. Sony first party have been working down the metal since the PS1 days. They have not had great tools or help. I would assume it would carry over to the PS3 where they would code close to the metal as possible. Secondly the sony first party must get every oz they can out of the PS3 to help justify its bigger price tag. Sony must use kick ass first party games to win over the public IMO. If the games look close or equal it gives the advantage to MS and its cheaper price tag. It is a shame I would love to see the results of a developer trying to squeeze out every oz of power out of the 360 coding close to the metal as possible.

 

Reading this statement whilst having my breakfast is really depressing.

Do you reall think this, because if so then nextgen is truly f**ked.

I sure hope you are wrong, at least about the PS3, I could care less if the 360 doesn't improve much. But with the PS3 I'm hoping we have a similar improvement curve as we had with the PS1 and PS2.

 

The PS3 games is gonna improve, alot, enjoy your breakfeast. Apart from the XBOX which had a short life and to many "lazy" developers that took the easy road every console has made leaps in game "performance" over their lifetime.

I think that in 5 years time (if the PS3 makes it ) the PS3 games really will look better than it´s nearest competitors. And i think the upcoming titles support this notion.

 

That would be great!

By then the system should be affordable too.

 

It is. I have one

 

This conversation is overall very silly. EVERY console maker has incentive to push their hardware as hard and far as possible. Why would Sony have more incentive than MS? Or more ability?

Nintendo actually might be the exception to this rule because stellar graphics are not necessarily part of their business plan. And grpahics does not necessarily equal fun... mechanics do... (This metpahor works very well for people too! lol )and by nailing the mechanics with acceptable graphics and already successful franchises they recieve what they really want anyway... MONEY.

MS has more incentive than Sony to have their games look good because a significant portion of the gaming community has the perception (hope?) that PS3 is not only innately the more powerful platform but that that power will somehow translate to the screen ina significant way.

 

They have more ability because they have more 1st party devs. MS may well want to push XB360 as hard, creating a diverse library that showcase the machine from different POVs, but they don't have the manpower to manage that. As it was, they pushed their first parties originally to get something out the door without it being the best possible. Sony's being a lot more patient in that respect, to chants of 'where are all our games?'

 

I'm not sure if patience and ability can be equated in this regard. Overall, Sony and MS had significantly different financial perspectives from which to launch their consoles. Sony having the PS2 (which is a cash cow) in their arsenal as well as developer and user mindshare allowed for a more longterm approach to development. MS HAD to come out of the gate swinging with games that could be seen as next gen... whats amazing is that they actually did it with shorter dev times and supposedly weaker hardware....

Im not sure if agree with the 1st party ability perspective either... MS has plenty of software technology that can compete with the Sony WWS code libraries... which is why it LOOKs like Sony is just catching up to MS in the latter half of 2007. Between the inhouse dev and the UE3 this codebase has been basically carrying the next genconsole industry for the last two years while Sony has been absent.

We havent really seen whats in store for 2008 either so unless MS offerings for 2008 are completely lackluster (ie on par with 2006/2007 offerings) I have to repsectfully disagree.

or maybe Sony devs are just aiming higher

 

You talk aboiut facts, yet offer none, just your limited appraisal and heavily biased perspective. You're not just looking at screenshots? Oh, well, that makes you automatically an authority and you've played every signifcant 360 title and even "gasp" own a few. Wowzer! Here's a stick of gum, maybe you can show us how to chew it.

 

And Windows+Office don't count for MS?!

By ability, I mean capacity. Sony are more able to make hardware-pushing games because there's more of them doing it. Just like a bus-load of people are more able to pull a car out the mud than a car-load of people.

 

Shifty Your getting old! LOL

I dont think its the same at all... I think that stuff on the PSP looks better than the stuff on the DS and everyone is making games on the DS. Ok let me say this differently. The best of PS2 games can rival the above average on the xbox... because more people spent more time trying to leverage the system. However the best of the xbox had no rival (visually). And nearly everyone thinks that xbox devs were "lazy" (whatever that means.)

I dont think numbers of devs have anything to do with quality - just quantity. Ubisoft grew their franchise base based primarily on the success of their primarily xbox titles like PoP and and SC. Starbreeze is an exemplary dev house. Between them they produced two of the best looking titles ever.

A busload of people may not be as smart efficient or creative as car load of people. While that busload is pushing, the car may just be TOWING. lol

 

I haven't been following this conversation, so the context you're reading my post is likely different to how I wrote it. I specifically answered the point of Sony having more ability to push their console by having more people to throw at the problem. Quality and quantity aren't issues I touched upon, nor software tools nor anything else. Though to be fair, I don't think they make much difference to the top devs. They throw tools at the window and write everything from scratch!

Well, do you think Sony's first-party developers are vastly stoopider than MS's, that'll they'll be pushing when MS's devs would tow? All these first party devs have to be pretty good at what they do, right? So in essence, the only differentiating factor is manpower. Seems that way to me anyhow. I can't see how MS with 1/3rd the 1st party developers (or whatever it is) at their disposal can produce as much platform-pushing software as Sony. They're not 3x as talented, and they haven't got 3x as much investment from the parent company either, seems to me.

 

Ofcourse not, quantity does not equal quality, but you have to look at the context your posting in.

It all started with me saying that the improvements we saw on the PS2 were due to a larger userbase, therefore more devs, bigger budgets etc, which in turn yields better results.

In terms of gaming, the larger pool of devs that are making devs for a system, the higher quality games you will get. This is because of, the more games that are in the making, the higher the competition, the more work you have to put into your title to shine.