John Carmack: 'You have to sweat a lot more over the PS3...'

lol @ people making cell architecture out to be complex that damn cpu is out of date as hell now.

i remember reading about cell back in like 2000 lol.

LOL ps2's cpu was harder to program for than dreamcast's sh4 LOL yet games still looked better.

it was automatically ps2 games looked better than dreamcast

first game to prove ps2 was better than dreamcast was unreal tournament 1999

I dont have the knowledge required for this but... I would have thought a man of his expertise in this industry would relish at the prospect of a challenge.Indie_Hitman

There are challenges and then there is the PS3.

Big companies are pouring millions into researching how to take advantage of multicore processes, they haven't even figured out how to thread code across two cores effectively. Yet Sony comes out with a parallel processor with 6 available SPE's and developers are simply expected to "figure it out"?

The problem with the PS3 is they cannot simply ignore it and optimized games for one core, the single general purpose core in the PS3 is so weak they have no option but to offload to the SPE's to make stuff work. To put it in perspective the 360's CPU has been compared to a "dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 (3.2GHz)" with three of Cells PPE's, PS3 only has one of them.

Not again...you guys...

john carmack never complained, he said it's harder to program for ps3's cpu than xbox360 and that's the truth.

he can still easily program for it, it's just easier to work on 360, less work is needed to archieve same results.

the reason why ps3 games look worse because ps3 doesnt have 512 unified memory and less free memory for dev's to work with so this limits polygon and texture resolution compared to xbox360.

the cell has nothing to do with it, even if they took advantage of it hows ps3 gonna make up for lack of ram?

reason games look better on xbox360 because it has 512 mb unified memory it's not because ps3 is hard to develop for.

reason games look better on xbox360 because it has 512 mb unified memory it's not because ps3 is hard to develop for.

It makes me sad how stupid people are

videogamesdead8

lol the main reason ps3 is harder to develop for because it's hard to fit games into ps3's crappy memory architecture.

it's not cell as much as memory being a problem for dev's making it hard to make game fit on ps3.

[QUOTE="Javy03"]Your assuming that they would take that saved R&D budget and put it into making the games better which might not be true.AnnoyedDragon

Developing exclusivly is easier for the obvious reason that you only have one set of specs to worry about, not because Sony is throwing money at them. My point is the complaints come from devs who wanna to make life easier and cheaper on themselves in the PORTING process.Javy03

when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingstereointegrity

Not many, Devs complain cause its more easy to port PC code to 360 then ps3 so they cry about it.

the main problem for ps3 is memory allocation, games like dirt on ps3 the dev's had trouble making the game fit on ps3 they had to to take out trees so it would fit in ps3's memory, on fight night round 3 they made the crowd 2d on ps3 to make up for lack of memory.

reason why dev's gotta work harder on ps3 because they gotta work how to fit these games in ps3's memory.

cell is less of a problem.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingfinalfantasy94

Not many, Devs complain cause its more easy to port PC code to 360 then ps3 so they cry about it.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingabuabed

Not many, Devs complain cause its more easy to port PC code to 360 then ps3 so they cry about it.

Meh you rarely see more and more devs complain about it. So I honestly dont care. Im guessing most got use to it.

dreamcast CPU was easier to program for than ps2 yet, actually sega had to be brought in to help port unreal tournament 1999 to dreamcast they found out dreamcast just did not have the amount of memory to fit the full pc game.

making the game try to fit in dreamcast memory foot print made them work harder than they did for the ps2 version.

i hope people get what im talking about now

CELL IS NOT THE MAIN ISSUE.

Yes videogamesdead8 we get it, you are making a flame worthy statement in a likely effort to bait people to argue with you and no one is paying attention. There is no need to repeat over and over again that you think the problem isn't Cell; against common developer opinion, people saw it the first time.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingabuabed

Not many, Devs complain cause its more easy to port PC code to 360 then ps3 so they cry about it.

ps3 as a whole might be able to do more cpu cycles, crunch more numbers run more advanced physics

but it just doesnt have the goddamn ram architecture set up to compete or gpu to compete with xbox360 graphically

videogamesdead8

LOL cpu's arent even hard to program for to begin with.

it's not like cell is a brand new architecture it uses a standard powerpc stripped down core and the only thing kinda new is a spe it's still based on existing architectures dev's have seen before.

this has nothing to do with ps3's textures being lower resolution, xbox360 has unified memory it has more memory to work with that's why it has better lookin textures aka graphics and it has better shaders because of a more advanced gpu.

videogamesdead8

when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingstereointegrity

Here are a few quotes for you.

"investing in the Cell...gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think it's a good solution. The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted" ~Gabe Newell; Co creater of Valve [2007]

"Sony's console is very exotic and tough to develop for".~ EA on Red Alert 3

"There's no doubt that Electronic Arts, along with many other publishers, had some challenges essentially meeting the technical specifications effectively on the PlayStation 3" ~ EA2008

"The politically incorrect answer is that the PS3 is a huge pain in the ass We had to play catch-up on the PS3 because of the memory constraints and how it renders;And it's harder on the PS3" ~Midway

"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it,the rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3, " ~John Carmack

And the sony responce to all of this;

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?"

--Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment

the main problem for ps3 is memory allocation, games like dirt on ps3 the dev's had trouble making the game fit on ps3 they had to to take out trees so it would fit in ps3's memory, on fight night round 3 they made the crowd 2d on ps3 to make up for lack of memory.

reason why dev's gotta work harder on ps3 because they gotta work how to fit these games in ps3's memory.

cell is less of a problem.

[QUOTE="videogamesdead8"]

LOL cpu's arent even hard to program for to begin with.

it's not like cell is a brand new architecture it uses a standard powerpc stripped down core and the only thing kinda new is a spe it's still based on existing architectures dev's have seen before.

this has nothing to do with ps3's textures being lower resolution, xbox360 has unified memory it has more memory to work with that's why it has better lookin textures aka graphics and it has better shaders because of a more advanced gpu.

lettuceman44

lol cpu's arent as complex as gpu's that's a fact.

ps3's harder to work for because it has less memory and they have to do x3 as much work making the game fit.

that's why most games now they dont have a lead platform like 360 because it would make them work twice as hard to port it to ps3.

while a ps3 can be lead platform and 360 port it fine because more memory.

Have you read anything I posted. I have never denied that the PS3 is harder to dev. for. My point is that fanboys make it a bigger deal then it is, there are plenty of studios making multiplat games on both and the truth is devs are around because they can port to the PS3/360/PC.

If not they couldnt afford the games they are making. As I said complaining about the PORT process being more expensive to me is petty. It's already a process that saves devs money and hearing them complain that they cant just dump a game made on another system on my system just seems petty. Its still probably the most compatable gen. for ports between the PC and two consoles. That says alot.

Javy03

All I see is fanboys downplaying how much of a big deal it is, redirecting blame away from their platform of preference and towards anyone who dares to criticise it. You accused only cross platform developers of complaining, ignoring that the other developers are on Sony's payroll. That sounds like redirecting the blame to me.

The truth is developers target PS3 with their multiplat games because they have to, they cannot ignore a substancial audience for their games with today's development costs. The developers do what they can with the resources they have; and here is were the Cows come in to call them lazy for not giving the PS3 special care.

lol i had a link saying john carmack i feel xbox360 is better all around piece of hardware.

DUHH 512 mb unified memory destroys split system memory with turbocache feature.

microsoft really did design the best consoles ever, original xbox has 64 mb of ram unified, unified memory is the best set up for a console.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingBoloTheGreat

Here are a few quotes for you.

lol i had a link saying john carmack i feel xbox360 is better all around piece of hardware.

DUHH 512 mb unified memory destroys split system memory with turbocache feature.

microsoft really did design the best consoles ever, original xbox has 64 mb of ram unified, unified memory is the best set up for a console.

videogamesdead8

Guys don't bite videogamesdead8 obvious bait, he spammed his ridiculous opinions to get people to argue with him.

Anyone stil need any more evidence?BoloTheGreat

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]when will he stop crying over this......how many other developers do u still hear complainingstereointegrity

Here are a few quotes for you.

[QUOTE="videogamesdead8"]

lol i had a link saying john carmack i feel xbox360 is better all around piece of hardware.

DUHH 512 mb unified memory destroys split system memory with turbocache feature.

microsoft really did design the best consoles ever, original xbox has 64 mb of ram unified, unified memory is the best set up for a console.

stereointegrity

LOL ok when xbox360 multiplats keep lookin better than ps3 at the end of this generation

what's gonna be everyone's excuse? dev's didnt know how to program for cell? What's this have to do with texture resolution? LOL

ps3 doesnt have unified memory it cannot compete end of story.

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]Anyone stil need any more evidence?stereointegrity

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

Here are a few quotes for you.

BoloTheGreat

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="videogamesdead8"]

lol i had a link saying john carmack i feel xbox360 is better all around piece of hardware.

DUHH 512 mb unified memory destroys split system memory with turbocache feature.

microsoft really did design the best consoles ever, original xbox has 64 mb of ram unified, unified memory is the best set up for a console.

videogamesdead8

LOL ok when xbox360 multiplats keep lookin better than ps3 at the end of this generation

what's gonna be everyone's excuse? dev's didnt know how to program for cell? What's this have to do with texture resolution? LOL

ps3 doesnt have unified memory it cannot compete end of story.

What is being said in this thread is not even that bad, Carmacks comment was basically "The PS3 is a harder machine to work with, we are having trouble getting it from the 20-30 FPS mark at this stage but we are confident both versions will run smoothly and consistatly and we will try our best" Paraphrasing there but this is pretty reasonable.

It's kinda like saying "The 360 has less hardware relyability", it's just something developers expect; When working on a titles, the PS3 version will be harder to make as good as the 360 version. It's just logical with the power over latency design of the cell and it's 'exotic' (as EA tried to say apologetically) Coding stlye.

And the whole Sony comunity, yes nearlly all the people i see in this thread with a whiff of PS3 about them have done this, bash Carmack to hell for it like he kicked their dog. It's just Buthurt Bawwwwwwing. If you are insecure about buying a super computer that turned out to be a games console you should not take it out on a man that is only saying what the rest of the industry is!

i used to be a big fan of sega's dreamcast because i grew up playing sega's consoles before sony's even though i started playing sony's first console ever when it was released more of fan of sega.

im not a fanboy, but i didnt really want to accept the dreamcast version of unreal tournament 1999 looked worse than the ps2 version and had maps cut out because of memory restrictions.

main reason i was pissed, because dreamcast had more video memory than ps2 8 mb vs 4 mb but ps2 had more system memory 16 vs 32 mb.

and that's why ut1999 looked better on ps2 because it had more memory.

if dreamcast had same amount of system memory dreamcast version might of looked better.

but xbox360 will always be better than ps3 because of it's memory architecture.

i used to be a big fan of sega's dreamcast because i grew up playing sega's consoles before sony's even though i started playing sony's first console ever when it was released more of fan of sega.

im not a fanboy, but i didnt really want to accept the dreamcast version of unreal tournament 1999 looked worse than the ps2 version and had maps cut out because of memory restrictions.

main reason i was pissed, because dreamcast had more video memory than ps2 8 mb vs 4 mb but ps2 had more system memory 16 vs 32 mb.

and that's why ut1999 looked better on ps2 because it had more memory.

if dreamcast had same amount of system memory dreamcast version might of looked better.

but xbox360 will always be better than ps3 because of it's memory architecture.

videogamesdead8

i mean maybe cell can be used to apply shader to texture to make it appear better, but xbox360's gpu would still be better at shading than a cpu.

and the default texture no applied shaders would still be lower resolution thanu could of made texture on 360.

id still put my money on xenos>>>rsx+cell at shading

LOL all of this for 360's gpu.

How many ATI engineers worked on the design of the Xenos GPU? Any statistics from this project you'd like to throw in?

Bob Feldstein: ATI had 175 engineers working on the Xenos GPU at the peak. These included architects, logic designers, physical design engineers, verification engineers, manufacturing test engineers, qualification engineers and management. The team was spread out between Orlando, Florida, Marlborough, Massachusetts and Toronto, Ontario. The team's size varied during the life of the program - in fact, we still have about 20 engineers involved in various cost down projects

http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1458/The-Power-of-the-Xbox-360-GPU/p1/

[QUOTE="Javy03"]

Have you read anything I posted. I have never denied that the PS3 is harder to dev. for. My point is that fanboys make it a bigger deal then it is, there are plenty of studios making multiplat games on both and the truth is devs are around because they can port to the PS3/360/PC.

If not they couldnt afford the games they are making. As I said complaining about the PORT process being more expensive to me is petty. It's already a process that saves devs money and hearing them complain that they cant just dump a game made on another system on my system just seems petty. Its still probably the most compatable gen. for ports between the PC and two consoles. That says alot.

All I see is fanboys downplaying how much of a big deal it is, redirecting blame away from their platform of preference and towards anyone who dares to criticise it. You accused only cross platform developers of complaining, ignoring that the other developers are on Sony's payroll. That sounds like redirecting the blame to me.

The truth is developers target PS3 with their multiplat games because they have to, they cannot ignore a substancial audience for their games with today's development costs. The developers do what they can with the resources they have; and here is were the Cows come in to call them lazy for not giving the PS3 special care.

What is being said in this thread is not even that bad, Carmacks comment was basically "The PS3 is a harder machine to work with, we are having trouble getting it from the 20-30 FPS mark at this stage but we are confident both versions will run smoothly and consistatly and we will try our best" Paraphrasing there but this is pretty reasonable.

It's kinda like saying "The 360 has less hardware relyability", it's just something developers expect; When working on a titles, the PS3 version will be harder to make as good as the 360 version. It's just logical with the power over latency design of the cell and it's 'exotic' (as EA tried to say apologetically) Coding stlye.

And the whole Sony comunity, yes nearlly all the people i see in this thread with a whiff of PS3 about them have done this, bash Carmack to hell for it like he kicked their dog. It's just Buthurt Bawwwwwwing. If you are insecure about buying a super computer that turned out to be a games console you should not take it out on a man that is only saying what the rest of the industry is!

BoloTheGreat

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

What is being said in this thread is not even that bad, Carmacks comment was basically "The PS3 is a harder machine to work with, we are having trouble getting it from the 20-30 FPS mark at this stage but we are confident both versions will run smoothly and consistatly and we will try our best" Paraphrasing there but this is pretty reasonable.

It's kinda like saying "The 360 has less hardware relyability", it's just something developers expect; When working on a titles, the PS3 version will be harder to make as good as the 360 version. It's just logical with the power over latency design of the cell and it's 'exotic' (as EA tried to say apologetically) Coding stlye.

And the whole Sony comunity, yes nearlly all the people i see in this thread with a whiff of PS3 about them have done this, bash Carmack to hell for it like he kicked their dog. It's just Buthurt Bawwwwwwing. If you are insecure about buying a super computer that turned out to be a games console you should not take it out on a man that is only saying what the rest of the industry is!

stereointegrity

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

What is being said in this thread is not even that bad, Carmacks comment was basically "The PS3 is a harder machine to work with, we are having trouble getting it from the 20-30 FPS mark at this stage but we are confident both versions will run smoothly and consistatly and we will try our best" Paraphrasing there but this is pretty reasonable.

It's kinda like saying "The 360 has less hardware relyability", it's just something developers expect; When working on a titles, the PS3 version will be harder to make as good as the 360 version. It's just logical with the power over latency design of the cell and it's 'exotic' (as EA tried to say apologetically) Coding stlye.

And the whole Sony comunity, yes nearlly all the people i see in this thread with a whiff of PS3 about them have done this, bash Carmack to hell for it like he kicked their dog. It's just Buthurt Bawwwwwwing. If you are insecure about buying a super computer that turned out to be a games console you should not take it out on a man that is only saying what the rest of the industry is!

BoloTheGreat

You know tons and tons of people in the thread have said, what about Killzone 2, blah blah... If you admit UC2 looks better than KZ2, then AC2 look better than Killzone as well, UC2 and AC2 are really close graphically. The people saying the PS3 games are SOOOOOOO much better looking is full of it, GEOW 2 was graphics king like what 10 months ago? Also, KZ2 JUST EDGED GEOW2.. The 360 also has no custom engine(well besides Banjo but people don't pay attention because it is too "kiddy"). With rage, what ever, the PS3 version will probably have a small(tiny) graphical down grade to hit 60fps.