Print 93 comment(s) - last by Sulphademus.. on Dec 26 at 4:47 PM

Phil Harrison on PS3 gaming, Wii and 2007

Sony Computer Entertainment’s Executive Vice President Phil Harrison is known for giving interesting, and perhaps even controversial interviews. Harrison most recently spoke to MTV, and gave his views on his company’s main product, and that of a competitor’s.

When asked for his opinion on the PlayStation 3’s launch, Harrison said, “2007 is the year of software, is how I'll answer that,” perhaps acknowledging the lack of software for the new machine. He did go on to elaborate that the aim for PlayStation 3 games is to break free from the old model of buying a game, finishing it, and then never to play it again. “The video-game business for the past 20 years was about shipping closed experiences,” he said. The new trend, he hopes, is “the start of the relationship with the consumer is when you launch the game … Next year you're going to see user-created experiences in a number of interesting ways on PlayStation 3.”

Questioning then turned to Nintendo and its choice to explore alternative means of inputs for gaming. Harrison said, “Nintendo should be congratulated” for introducing a large number of non-gamers to the industry though the Nintendo DS’s ease of control with the stylus and touch screen. Without mentioning the Wii, he also acknowledged that 2006 is the year of the motion controller.

On the topic of PlayStation capabilities, Harrison said that it takes end-of-cycle games such as Gran Turismo 2 for the PSone and God of War II for the PS2 to full explore a system’s full potential. He believes that the current PS3 launch titles use “less than half” of the system’s computational power, but even more interesting is his bold statement that “Nobody will ever use 100 percent of its capability.” Whether he is implying that the PS3 has limitless potential or that developers will never fully overcome the complexities of the Cell architecture is unclear. In either case, gamers should expect better games in 2007.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By SaintSinner1 on 12/20/2006 11:01:49 AM , Rating: 4
I will buy PS3 when games will use it full potential and price for system will be half buhahahahahaha ....

RE: Perfect
By THEREALJMAN73 on 12/20/2006 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
The price and games available is holding me back too.

I wish Sony released the PS3 with a DVD drive and optional (internal) blu-ray at a later date to keep the prices down.

I really like the technology but dang I cannot stomach that $600.00 price tag.

RE: Perfect
By Ochophosphate on 12/20/2006 1:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
I agree, but I believe the issue is with the size of the games. Isn't Resistance something like 16-18gb? I think I read somewhere that Lair is up around 28gb. I may be wrong here, but isn't that a bit too big for a normal DVD? They wanted to go BlueRay so they could jam it full of more detail and still keep the game an acceptable length. Rather than make it beautiful, but only 2 hours long, or 6 discs long.

Regardless, I'm not going to pay $600 for any system, regardless of its capabilities. Not even if it came with an orgasmatron peripheral... and could brew beer... and cut aluminum cans without dulling its blade... and give a deep tissue shiatsu massage... you get the picture.

After all... it's just a game (system).

RE: Perfect
By walk2k on 12/20/2006 1:56:54 PM , Rating: 5
That's correct. The reason they didn't ship the base model without a BD drive is the same reason they didn't ship it without a HDD, developers historically will not spend the extra time and expense to fully support optional peripherals that only a percentage of users have.

(DVD is 9GB max, single-layer BD is 25 and dual-layer is over 50GB).

If you don't need the WiFi adapter, the 20GB model will save you $100. If you consider the 360 still costs more after you add on the HD-DVD drive ($400 for the 20GB 360 + $200 for the HD-DVD) then it's a hell of a bargain. Plus with the PS3 you can upgrade the HDD at market prices any time you want.

IMO if you want to go cheap, pick up a used PS2 for $89..
(Or a Wii.... if you can find one).

RE: Perfect
By ElJefe69 on 12/20/06, Rating: -1
RE: Perfect
By Sulphademus on 12/26/2006 4:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
ever wonder why it is called an x-box yet it is definitely... a box? maybe that is just me.

My theory involves Microsoft's Direct X which they have been using to control graphics in Windows for many moons.

The Box part? Well, not much worse than a Station that you Play at or maybe a Cube that plays Games .

RE: Perfect
By DigitalFreak on 12/20/2006 6:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you consider the 360 still costs more after you add on the HD-DVD drive ($400 for the 20GB 360 + $200 for the HD-DVD) then it's a hell of a bargain

Stop with the reguritated Sony propaganda already. No one HAS to buy the 360 HD-DVD drive to play games on the 360.

RE: Perfect
By Goty on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
RE: Perfect
By Pandamonium on 12/20/2006 7:49:35 PM , Rating: 4
Comparing the XBox360 to the PS3 needs to be done carefully. Most people, I believe, look at either product as a gaming console. In that respect, the XBox is far "cheaper" than a PS3. A few people consider the PS3 as an all-in-one entertainment hub. The only way to compare a 360 with that is to pair the 360 with the optional HD-DVD accessory. But just because a vocal few believe the PS3 is more than a game console doesn't mean that the vast majority don't perceive both products as gaming consoles.

Personally, I view the PS3 as a gaming console. So as far as I'm concerned, it's a ripoff. If I want HD video, I'll buy a player that supports a dominant format. I don't want to pay extra for an unproven format. Sony doesn't give me that option; Microsoft does.

RE: Perfect
By otispunkmeyer on 12/21/2006 4:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
well said

as gaming consoles

360 would cost me £290 new, PS3 is supposed to be £425 when it comes. winner = 360

as the full multimedia package

360 would cost £290 + £130 = £420 an extra fiver gets you the PS3, with more HDD space, wifi and card reader and the option to simply upgrade the HDD with any old 2.5" drive and run linux

winner = PS3

personally ill be viewing them as gaming machines. im not a DVD buff/collector and i couldnt afford to replace the DVD's i do own at the moment.

the only reason i would buy a HD DVD drive for my 360 would be to test out the new HDTV my dads thinking of buying (UK HDTV hasnt really got going yet) and that'd be it.

RE: Perfect
By Kevil on 12/21/2006 8:46:15 AM , Rating: 2
The one thing I don't like about the 360 is the small peripherals you find yourself buying. For wireless access I purchased the adapter. Then I purchased two of the charge and play kits. The 360 is the first console I've ever felt the need to purchase any peripheral(besides a second controller). I'm not saying its a prerequisite to enjoy the system it just all quickly adds up and I would of preferred to have paid a little extra for all these peripherals to have come in the box.

RE: Perfect
By ani4ani on 12/21/2006 9:23:43 AM , Rating: 3
Dont forget that the PS3 can act as a genuine PC as well, i.e. as I have done with my Japan import [its an option in the setup], you can install a additional OS, e.g. Yellow Dog Linux etc. I can actually play PC games on my PS3 as well. Before long I fully expect to be able to connect my 360 HD DVD add-on to it as well. [its being worked on]

I have two 500 GB drives full of ripped DVD's [or legal I may add] connected to it as well. Proper USB 2 support unlike the 360 [I have 2 btw] is a nice feature.

Before long, Sony will allow "remote play and Video], i.e. if you have a PSP you will be able to play games loaded on your PS3 anywhere in the world if you have an internet connection - soon to be the same with media content, e.g. alla Location Free

RE: Perfect
By otispunkmeyer on 12/21/2006 4:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
i thought alot of the disc space used wasnt for mega hi res textures n stuff (because of the RSX and how the memory is shared - 512mb UMA in 360 256+256 in the PS3, though i think RSX can call upon Cells 256mb if needs latency/speed cost) but was used for multiple languages (ie only 1 disc need be pressed) and lots of HD FMV sequences etc.

unless, and i would really like to see this, PS3 will use that french companies method of storing textures as "maths" and then having cell use its vast potential to reconstruct the high res textures from a mathmatical formula rather than storing the actual texture.

either way i honestly dont believe that the games are taking up so much space due to lots of textures or lots of uber hi-res textures because i just cant see the PS3's memory set up, nor the RSX (since it is only a pimped G70) being able to handle them

RE: Perfect
By ViperROhb34 on 12/21/2006 10:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, but I believe the issue is with the size of the games. Isn't Resistance something like 16-18gb? I think I read somewhere that Lair is up around 28gb.

I read a thread and article at one site where someone had hacked Resitance Fall Of Man to see what was actually on the disc. The game itself is nowhere near what Sony advertises. Tyipically DVD's are put out in region specific areas. There are like 7 or 8 regions int he worlds. Sony the Japanese version DVD won't work in USA. Sony put all regions of Resistance on one Bluray Disc. Then for EVERY region there if about 400 megabytes of padding ( junk data for those of you who don't know that term ) so that the game data can be on the outide of the disc to be read faster.. and since the BD player in the PS3 already seems slow.. that padding probably helps. By the way padding is not new.. its been used on both Cd's and DVD's as well so that the 'Important' data is read faster.

I think it'll be a Good feature to be able to put data on one disc.. I've heard rumors that Blue Dragon ( coming from those Final Fantasy creators ? ) will be on at least THREE DVD's ... this isn't a major inconvience.. I mean popping in another disc is takes seconds and the 12x DVD player loads alot faster.

RE: Perfect
By GoatMonkey on 12/21/2006 1:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not even if it came with an orgasmatron peripheral... and could brew beer... and cut aluminum cans without dulling its blade... and give a deep tissue shiatsu massage... you get the picture.

I don't know, those features might do it for me.

RE: Perfect
By Sulphademus on 12/26/2006 4:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well worth $600!

RE: Perfect
By CascadingDarkness on 12/20/2006 6:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that Sony just reached too far overall. They wanted all the new cool stuff. Fact is you pay extra for all the new cool stuff. (similar to buying new pc parts and paying +40% more than 3 month old parts)

What it comes down to is most people simply can't justify spending that much money unless they really used if for every single thing sony says it can be.

I buy consoles to play games, I build my PCs to play games and do everything else I want, so until price comes down I won't be taking a serious look. Just my thoughts.

RE: Perfect
By DigitalFreak on 12/20/2006 6:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about Sony trying to force Blu-ray on the market.

RE: Perfect
By masher2 on 12/21/2006 5:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly...which explains all the armed Sony employees hanging around Best Buy, pistol-whipping those who don't spend their money on Sony products. :-/

Seriously, no one "forces" you to buy anything. Sony is no different than any other company-- they offer you a product at a certain price. If you don't like the deal, pass on it. Voting with your wallet is persuasive indeed.

RE: Perfect
By Fanon on 12/21/2006 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the consumer makes the purchasing decision, but I also agree with DigitalFreak.

Sony has a vested interest in the success of Blu-Ray, and they know full well that the average consumer isn't going to drop the money on a Blu-Ray set-top box. So what do they do? They put the drive into the next PlayStation, the historically best selling gaming console.

RE: Perfect
By masher2 on 12/21/2006 10:28:48 AM , Rating: 1
So, depending on your perspective Sony has either designed a console that also gives you a low-priced entry point into the best HD entertainment platform around...or built an overpriced monstrosity that can and should be ignored by the public.

In neither case has anything been 'forced' upon the people. If enough people choose option A, Blu Ray will become a standard. If enough choose B, then BR will die quietly away.

RE: Perfect
By Sulphademus on 12/26/2006 4:47:20 PM , Rating: 2

A $600 PS3 with BluRay
A $400 360 + $200 HDDVD

The only major difference I see (not argueing formats) is that the Xbox gives you the option, the Station does not. Fully configure both though, aint it the same?

PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By theteamaqua on 12/20/2006 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 4
Its pretty good actually, but none of the games have graphics thats comparable to Gears of War on 360...

i have a 360 , too , and yeah Gears of War is no doubt the best looking game of 2006. Not sure about game play as its kinda repetitive, u duck enemy duck u shoot he shoots ... also the campaign is linear...

Looking forward to Crysis, Supreme commander, C & C 3 (PC of course)

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By Mudvillager on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By logaldinho on 12/20/2006 1:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
and im putting money that unrealtech4 is going to look much better than oblivion when it officially hits the PC. i thought we were comparing console/console graphics? not console/neverachieveadecentframerateforanotheryear (<- never achieve a decent framerate for another year) pc games. show me a system that has oblivion max't out that is playable.

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By Aikouka on 12/20/2006 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
The 8800GTX can handle even higher than he said:

Albeit there's no AA, because you'd have to specify that in the Control Panel since you either get HDR or AA. But I'm not too sure if you'd really need AA at 2560x1600 :P.

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By ElFenix on 12/20/2006 3:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
AA fixes more than just jaggies.

and jaggies are a function of the physical size of the pixels. if you're on a 24" screen they'll be more apparent than they would be on a 17" screen. jaggies were glaringly visible to me on a 19" (18" actual) CRT monitor at 1600x1200, and it wouldn't surprise me if 2560x1600 on a 24" monitor results in physically larger pixels.

By masher2 on 12/21/2006 6:06:03 AM , Rating: 1
> "AA fixes more than just jaggies."

Anti-aliasing reduces aliasing...hence the name. Aliasing is what is informally known as "the jaggies"...the blockiness in representing a high-frequency signal on a low-frequency source (such as a monitor with fixed pixel sizes).

> "you're on a 24" screen they'll be more apparent than they would be on a 17" screen"

The physical size of the screen has nothing to do with it..its the dot pitch that matters. A 24" monitor at 1920x1200 has almost exactly the same dot pitch as a 17" monitor at 1280x1024. The "jaggies" would be more apparent on a 19" screen (which typically has a 1280x1024 resolution and thus a larger dot pitch) than it would be on either the 17" or 24" screens.

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By Goty on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
By Lakku on 12/21/2006 2:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
This is gonna reply to a couple posts, but first, FSAA works with Oblivion on the 8800GTX, just use the force option in the control panel. Second, I personally don't feel oblivion benefits a tremendous amount from FSAA. I have used both at 1680x1050, and due to the nature of the environments and characters, it doesn't make a huge difference. However, it does make a difference in the cities, but not enough to make an eye-popping difference. I leave it off for better framerates. With that said, I have every slider turned to max, including enchanced tweaks in the.ini file for water and other things, I have changed the texture sizes for distant lands to 2048x2048, which takes up a much larger space then the defaults, and enchanced normal maps, with constant framerates of 60fps (vsync on) unless in HEAVY vegitation and trees, which drops it to 45 to 55. It runs perfectly fine my friends. Now, with that said, it doesn't matter, GoW looks much better then Oblivion, especially character models. Oblivion character models are HORENDOUS.

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By michal1980 on 12/20/06, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2006 2:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
no olivioun in my book was a repatitive game. Go to tower, slash enemyies if strong enough, if not stay back and create magic enemey, rinise repeat.

Translated: No Oblivion, In my book was a repetitive game.
Go to a tower, Slash enemies if I'm strong enough...
If not stay back and cast magic, Kill enemy,
Rinse and repeat.

Well Michael, If Oblivion is a repetitive game...
You must be the kind of person who enjoys Pong for 12 hours straight.
But like they say, Simple games, Please simple minds!

Oblivion is a HUGE world, And you have freedom to do as you wish. How can that be a repetitive?

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By jtyson on 12/20/06, Rating: -1
By menting on 12/20/2006 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
programming for multiple cores is WAY harder than programming fora single core, and taking it to its full advantage is almost impossible. Look at all the software that supports multiple cores on the PC. NONE of them are close to the theoretical limit of the gains of a multiple core system. Sure you can use a 3rd party software to help you create new games, but if you want to take full advantage of it...well i seriously doubt it'll happen anytime soon, if ever.
BTW, even IBM can't utilize the full potential of the cell processor yet, and they designed the thing too.

RE: PS 3 is a nice machine, just got one :)
By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2006 2:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
They did say the same thing, And even some Dreamcast games had better graphics than the PS2 for awhile.
The Gamecube had even more Potential than the PS2, And the proof is in the pudding, Resident Evil -One- of the best looking games on the last generation of consoles, The Polygons that Resident Evil threw out; was more than what Nintendo' claimed the GPU could handle.

Halo 2 also looked incredible and showed what the Xbox was able to handle.

The PS3's Cell processor isn't exactly efficient, All the cores cannot directly talk to another, so if 1 thread needs to know something, it has to go back through system memory etc, just to find out what it wants,
Plus there is only 1 General Purpose core, So game programmers are going to have a hard time programming multiple threads for the console.

The Xbox 360's cores are all multi-purpose, so game developers can use that resource anyway they desire.

Plus Microsoft has released "Developer Packs" of sorts, to help game developers design game for the console.

The Wii, Even Indie Developers can make games for the consoles. (Indie basically means Individual game developers - Sorta like Popcap or Gamehouse).

Just give it time, 1 or 2 games will push the potential of the console, And by that time PC games would be several leaps ahead.

By Chainzsaw on 12/22/2006 10:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
Just for the record, in reply to STEVOLINCOLNITE,

INDIE, means independent.

You were correct when you said individual, but independent is more accurate.

This PS3 would look nice on my 24" Dell WFP!

By bigbrent88 on 12/22/2006 4:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are we talking console only graphics? I would say, right now, that the Source engine produces some of the best scenes of any game engine out there, we'll see what happens in the switch to the consoles which will give us an idea of their power.
Plus Valve is working on a multi-threading addition that works with any number of cores to improve performance. It does so dynamicaly I think, so you don't have to program specific code to cores. Sounds like a perfect fit for the PS3 to me. To the point, Gears is limited in its output, some things are pretty detailed(explosions, character poly counts) but I dont see that dynamic range that you get with the Source engine.

By Outsider524 on 12/20/2006 12:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Bullshit, they said the same thing about PS2 and graphics only got mildly better. Sure they used creative effects to hide the PS2's weaknesses but to true technologists such as myself, the low poly count was obviously apparent compared to games such as RE4 for the GCN or even the XBOX version of Call of Duty 3. And so after a few years of lying about PS2 and PS3 capabilities, the PS3 launch, and how Sony is now trying to carbon copy the Wii's remote (anybody remember E3 2005 where the controller was a boomerang and how they gave Nintendo so much shit for the Wiimote? Then the next year rolls around and Sony pulls a complete "Me Too" bullshit maneuver with the SIXAXIS Controller- big fucking deal). That's not even mentioning any of the other divisions of Sony (exploding batteries anyone?), so no thanks Sony but trusting you is like trusting an LA whore who says she's completely clean.

By bplewis24 on 12/20/2006 12:29:10 PM , Rating: 3
Do you have any comments relating to the article or the subject at hand?


By Goty on 12/20/2006 12:38:41 PM , Rating: 1
You're one seriously misinformed reader. Sure, you can have your opinions, but you really need to know what you're talking about first. Compare first generation games for the PS2 like Oni and the like to later releases such as GT4, Shadow of the Colossus, and MGS3 and I'll be damned if you can call that a "mild improvement".

As for the PS2 not looking as good as the Gamecube, I'm going to call BS on that. The Gamecube had plenty of great games, but the graphics never really excelled in comparison to the other systems of the generation (that's not to say that they didn't have some good games, though).

Speaking of the boomerang controller, the only mechanical difference between it and the SIXAXIS controller is the shape. The boomerang, as far as I can remember, has always been motion sensitive.

So yeah, get off your high horse, stop acting the elitist and please become more informed before speaking on something that you really don't have any hard facts about.

By igloo15 on 12/20/2006 1:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
I am calling bullshit on the gamecube and PS2 comment.

In fact the Gamecube was more powerful and easier to code for then the PS2.

Just doing a quick search on the technical aspects of both Gamecube and PS2 you can find numerous people talking about the superiorty of the Gamecube over the PS2 in graphics.

By ElJefe69 on 12/20/2006 6:37:04 PM , Rating: 1
yes, ps2 games looked better than on the gamecube most of the time. The main reason for this is that the ps2 was the money maker for companies. They never bothered to exceed the limits of the graphics on the ps2 and fully utilize the gamecube's ability. It wouldnt be worth the investment.

same thing with xbox. Lots of games could look like halo2 but never would as it wasnt worth making games look better than they did on a ps2.

A rep from EA said that and it made sense to me.

By CascadingDarkness on 12/20/2006 7:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
Your exactly right, for developers going for all consoles. Which makes the most sense for game companies. It gets their game to widest audience.

I wouldn't mind seeing what a late generation (once they figure out how to use ps3) big budget PS3 exclusive would look like though. Since that's usually the only case hardware is actually fulfilled. Like everyone's said I doubt that will be soon.

By otispunkmeyer on 12/21/2006 4:23:20 AM , Rating: 2

i dont know why people try to compare the same games on different platforms

they're gonna look, near as chuff, the same.

if you wanna compare graphics compare 2 first party games, since those will be coded to take full advantage of the hardware.

3rd party games just find a happy medium between platforms

By igloo15 on 12/20/2006 3:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
I could care less about which machine is more powerful but when you go and say I call bullshit making you seem like some all knowing person trying to prove the other person wrong. All the while spewing bullshit about the PS2 being better then Gamecube graphically it irks me.

The only reason there is games that look better now on the PS2 over the gamecube is because the PS2 has probably 3 times as many titles with far more development time and effort put into them. If you look at the two consoles in their mid streams at the hieght of each console the Gamecube was graphically greater then PS2.

Again i could care less about graphics as I have no PS2 or Gamecube neither Wii or PS3. I just wanted to point out how you are wrong.

By KernD on 12/20/2006 11:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Our engine at work has both a GC and PS2 version and I'm pretty sure the GC is more powerful than a PS2, with the PS2 you always have to use all sorts of tricks that reduce the image quality to get decent frame rate, like using 16 bits render targets... that means banding will be visible. Never use any lighting too.

Coding graphics for a PS2 is like coding graphics without a graphic driver on a PC. I'm glad to be working on the PC/360 versions.

But I'll say this against the GC, PowerPC assembly optimized code is ugly as s..., it took me a while to decrypt the skinning function that works on pairs of floats instead of a vector4 in Down Hill Jam.

By otispunkmeyer on 12/21/2006 4:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
gamecubes flipper GPU was also a fixed function afair wasnt it?

programmable GPU's had been on the PC for ages and the PS2's is fully programmable as well isnt it?

By Outsider524 on 12/20/2006 9:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
First and foremost, I love how I actually have had backup on my points by quite a few people. Secondly, how can you even say that the PS2 was more powerful than GCN when a)it's a common fact that the GCN was technically superior and b) there are plent of games that weren't possible on PS2 that were on GCN. Case in point, RE4 had to be seriously dumbed down for the PS2 ie. half the poly count, pre-rendered cinematics (compared to real time on GCN), and an unstable framerate. I would know, I bought the PS2 version for the Ada side story. Thirdly, who's the misinformed one anyway, the Boomerang controller was NEVER motion sensitive. Do your goddamn homework before you start badmouthing me Goty, when I never attacked any user with my post. Seriously, don't fuck with someone who's minor is computer science and technology.

By StevoLincolnite on 12/20/2006 8:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well back when Final Fantasy 8 rolled around, a mate had it for his PS1 (The only consoles I have ever bought was a snes, N64, and xbox 1), And I was watching this wierd funky thing all about the PS1 and Final Fantasy 8 game, Final Fantasy used approximately 90% Of the total system power, and -I- thought it was personally the prettiest game on the console.
We all know that when a Console is first released games do not use its full potential, The game makers, haven't, learn all the little tricks, and optimizations, And what not.
Games fr the PS3 may only use half the total power of the system, but they don't mention on the amount of power games use on the 360, or Wii.

So, Its a Sony Fan-Boy artcle.
Memba' the snes? With Donkey kong? Those graphics I thought were amazing for such an old system!

By Murst on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
RE: power
By MooseMuffin on 12/20/2006 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
If you're referring to one of the cores of the cell processor being disabled, this has nothing to do with the first batch of ps3s and will be the case for future ps3 batches as well. This has been in the design specification for a long time now.

RE: power
By walk2k on 12/20/2006 2:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's not "disabled". One SPE is reserved for the OS.

RE: power
By FITCamaro on 12/20/2006 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
One is also disabled as a reserve or it just doesn't plain work. The Cell has 8 SPEs on it. Only 7 are usable. 6 for games and one for the OS as you said. If the 8th is even functional, its disabled unless one of the others fails in which case it becomes functional to maintain the active 7. If you got a PS3 with a bad 8th SPE and one dies, then you're SOL and get to go buy a new PS3.

I agree that Sony typically has a system that is powerful (not that I think its any more powerful than the 360) but difficult to program for. If there's a PS4, they need to focus on the development package as Microsoft has. And Microsoft has been smart. They made it very easy for developers to port their games over to PCs so that developers can get twice (or more) as big an audience for their games. Sony needs to start thinking about these things. Look at the rumors of games like MGS4 coming to the 360. As games get more expensive to produce, developers will be looking to have as many people as possible able to buy it. By being cross platform, you make that a lot easier.

RE: power
By SunLord on 12/20/2006 6:52:05 PM , Rating: 3
Uh... NO.

The Cell has 8 SPEs 7 are active and is 1 disabled in order to boost chip yeilds. It will never be active as it's just to reduce costs by allowing less then perfect chips be used. Just like the orginal celeron and it being nothing more then a pentium with half its cache turned off because it was defective

RE: power
By DigitalFreak on 12/20/2006 6:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you got a PS3 with a bad 8th SPE and one dies, then you're SOL and get to go buy a new PS3.

This has been confirmed by an engineer at IBM that worked on the Cell.

RE: power
By Lakku on 12/21/2006 2:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
One is always disabled for the PS3. They use software to run checks on the SPEs and if one is found to be defective, it is disabled. If more then one is, it is scraped. If all 8 work, it is either used for IBM or one core is disabled with software and used that way. All PS3s therefore have 7 active cores, period. Now if one is reserved for the OS after that, I dont know, but I remember Sony saying that it was.

RE: power
By PrinceGaz on 12/20/2006 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually one SPE is disabled, and another one is reserved for the OS, leaving six of the eight available for use by games.

Sony's UntappedPotential™
By therealnickdanger on 12/20/2006 12:08:17 PM , Rating: 4
Sony has been sporting a chubby over all of their consoles' UntappedPotential™ for the last 10 years. Whenever a game fails to impress, it's always that the developer just didn't dip into the UntappedPotential™. Sony should focus on making the UntappedPotential™ of their products "tap-able" so people don't have to wait 4 years to get good-looking games and developers don't have to spend more money trying to get there.

Sorry, but Sony has no excuses left and no one should stand up for them. Sony has been hyping this launch as the pinnacle of gamedom for the past two years, only to launch with sub-par games with less-than-impressive graphics. Sure, bum launch titles are common to any system, but Sony really bit it hard. Hopefully consumers wise up are reward Sony with UntappedProfit™.

RE: Sony's UntappedPotential™
By Trisped on 12/20/2006 12:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sony should focus on making the UntappedPotential™ of their products "tap-able" so people don't have to wait 4 years to get good-looking games and developers don't have to spend more money trying to get there.
Agreed. They should also focus on making a system that is natively powerful, rather then one of these convoluted monstrosities.

What I mean is not only do we need better software development tools, but more PC like hardware. Of course they don't want that because ROMs are really easy to emulate if you do that.

RE: Sony's UntappedPotential™
By TheFro on 12/20/2006 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 4
Potential is just that, potential.

While PS3 games may not be utilizing the full potential of the hardware, Sony has to make sure that developers are easily capable of utilizing the hardware completely.

PS2 for example, a few developers were able to pour enough resources into making great looking PS2 games. Not all were able to do so because the hardware was not that easy to program for and with limited resources not all the hardware could be utilized. I see the same trend continuing with the PS3.

The 360 and Wii take the opposite approach, using hardware that can be considered less powerful than the PS3 but with an architecture that can be easliy utilized. Hell, Microsoft just released a developer kit for the 360 so that people at home can make games; makes you wonder which console is easier to program for.

By otispunkmeyer on 12/21/2006 4:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
i agree with this

its all well and good making an engine capable of 2000bhp, but when there isnt the cooling, or transmission available thats capable of harnessing it. so whats the point? all it gives you is the right to claim "the most powerful in theory" title.

"in theory we have the most powerful production engine evar! you just have to wait a couple of years for someone to make a gearbox that wont explode when you push the loud pedal, and once they do...the traction control needed will be so vigorous that it wont matter anyway!"

its all about usable power.

crap example - test drive unlimited. fully tuned ferrari enzo > fully tuned koenigsegg CCR. why? the CCR has soo much power and with it soo much turbo lag that you cant drive it properly. the enzo has less hp, but no turbo lag and its a much easier car to drive fast in. in the kegg you are always fighting

CELL might be more powerful, with more potential. but 360's CPU makes more of its power and potential attainable.

CELL = koeniggsegg, 360 = Enzo

both are fast, but one gives an easier ride than the other.


time = money.

I would hope so
By 05SilverGT on 12/20/2006 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
Considering some titles don't even run as well as there 360 counterparts.

RE: I would hope so
By kuyaglen on 12/20/2006 11:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
Thats more the fault of the developer. The only launch game that I remember that showed off its hardware in specatcular fashion was Soul Caliber. Once the devs get more time with the hardware it the quality of the software will rise. Give it time, the X360 has been out for a good while now and now it has GeoW.

RE: I would hope so
By Trisped on 12/20/2006 12:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
You could blame the developer, but the main problem is the complexity of the system, not the time and money thrown to make things work right. PS3 requires much more complicated thread managment then the 360. That, and the other strange qualities of the system indicate to me that the PS3 will have great games, but none of those games will be good ports.

Quick Question
By Tharealplay123boi on 12/21/2006 1:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the 360 run on a modified DX9? So if so couldn't Micro$oft rewrite and update it to include some of the aspects of DX10? and take advantage of some of the mind blowing changes coming about? It seems that the PS3 is just stuck with the cell and not all of the tools the 360 has for developers. I personally think that Sony has made several promises out of the box that they did not keep, and for the high price whether or not they win the graphics battle I cannot justify buying a PS3.

RE: Quick Question
By evilchicken on 12/21/2006 2:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
I read somewhere on the net that Gears of War only uses 40% of the Xbox's power and only 1 CPU core.
Don't forget that the PS3 has had numerous delays and plenty of development time for the first wave of software releases.
Halflife will be a multithreaded game and will be available on both systems and so should be a good indication of which console can do what.

RE: Quick Question
By Tharealplay123boi on 12/21/2006 2:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ok read up on the the 360 and DX10 but it seems to me that they can at least do a custom DX9.5 and really take advantage of the 360 to do things that the PS3 cant do! What does everyone think?

"1up reports that ATI has debunked a rumor that Xbox 360 could be upgraded to support DirectX 10 via a patch. "Xbox360 cannot run DX10," an ATI spokesperson told 1up. Currently, Microsoft's console runs an advanced version of DirectX 9, which, according to ATI, features "memory export that can enable DX10-class functionality such as stream-out."

By Enoch2001 on 12/20/2006 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 4
Love or hate the PS3, I'll eventually pick one up if a "must have" title comes out for it that truely exploits its power. The question is, how long do I have to wait?

It took me a year to finally break down and buy a 360, and that's only because of Gears of War . My HD-DVD drive and other games are just secondary treats.

By AxemanFU on 12/20/2006 1:00:57 PM , Rating: 3
The quality of the gameplay, replayability, bug free play, and to a lesser extent innovation are much more important than graphics. Graphics are icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Better graphics are only really important when crappy graphics start to impede gameplay itself, like distance viewing or distinguishing details for identification of friend or foe, etc.

Some of the best games ever made look like crap, even at the time, but had incredible playability that make all the difference.

By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2006 2:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
StarCraft still has a cult following, Graphics still suck, Gameplay still PWNS.

I still occasionally fire up my N64 for a Perfect Dark/007/Mario Cart Thrashing.

I would choose a 2D game with awesome game play over anything With absolutely l33t gr8phix.

Some people on the other hand prefer graphics over great game play, mainly for bragging rights.

I must admit though, I enjoyed FarCry when it was first released only for the graphics, I reckon I spent like 6 hours wandering around in the game looking at stuff, 'only cause it was pwetty.

By tkSteveFOX on 12/21/2006 4:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
OK so the PS2 games always sucked in terms of graphics in the PS2 it`s either good polys with low textures and barely any effects or lots of effects low polys low textures(Shadow of the collosus)THe only time that the PS2 can produce all of these is in cell shader mode.Cause then the textures are self generated and alot less complexed(okami for instance).I have to admit that sony had a few good games for the PS2.In my oppinion sony relies only on the translation of old games.What if the FF fans get tottaly bored with all those FF series i mean come on 12 parts of one game???Shure they are all different but the core gameplay remains the same.Devil may cry is an absolutly horrible game i didn`t like the first one neither the second nor the third.(reason bad graphics cheezy story that i`ve seen over and over in games and repetative gameplay)MGS is another story for me it`s the best PS game to come out ever PERIOD.Now the Gamecube has little popular titles like the mario franchise but Metroid Prime is the best looking shooter to come out for the last generation consoles.We all know that the FPS genre is the most demanding in terms of hardware.Lets face it the PS2 has like none good looking shooters and all the shooters on the system strrugle to produce even 50fps.Halo 2 is another story amazing graphics for it`s time and a stabel frame rate so did the metroid prime for the Gamecube.While talking about full potential the first hand of games always look the worst(there is one exeption the Dreamcast wich had superior unseen graphics for it`s time i still play DOA2 on it and it still looks amazing far better than Tekken Tag Tournament for instance and talking about colour the DC had the most amazing palletes of colours it`s a shame that the DC had to go down so soon those of you who own a DC and Ecco the dolphin show it to the SHadow of the Collosus fans).The gamecube`s full potential was RE4 and Metroid Prime2 and Wind Waker(the best looking cell shaded game to date!!).The
Wii had double the graphics and procesing power of the Gamecube imagine RE4 looking two times better or metroid prime.I think that the Twilight Princess has awsome graphics for a first generation game.Last years games for the XBX360 didn`t look better.THe X360`s GPU is far superior to the RSX
due to it`s unified shader architecture.It`s like comparing 8800GT with 7900GT.One thing puzzles me the Wii`s GPU the so called Hollywood.My guess is that this is an X1600core but who acctually knows.I`ts been a month now and there are still no real hardware specs for the Wii.Maybe it has secrets that even the PS3 doesn`t have.For now i`ll wait till next year to see the progress that games make.THe conclusion is if like to play fun games that kill time and make you happy in the end by a Wii.If you`re a graphics and gore junkie buy a PS3 or a XBX360.

RE: Conclusion
By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2006 9:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
Your correct there, A lot of the Wii's hardware IS unknown.
There has been rumors of a Physics processor (Still unsure on that one...)
The GPU on the Gamecube was rather unknown to the public, Same thing with the Wii, All we know is the clock speed on the GPU.
which is something like 243Mhz. (Up from something like 170ish on the Gamecube).

The next Nintendo Console may challenge the Big Boys Sony and Microsoft in terms of hardware, Maybe then we might see them brag on the Hardware details? :P

By Dfere on 12/21/2006 8:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
This is becuase of the lifecycle of the console. Maybe Wii II will change this, but consoles have had lifespans of 5 year. Many PC enthusiasts buy a new computer much earlier, or upgrade the video card.

I do think it is fair to say $650 gets you this... or that... now . But to say consoles and PC's are merging, no.

By tkSteveFOX on 12/22/2006 3:07:54 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait till AMD\ATI show their CPU\GPU unit and then all the consoles will bite the dust.

Inefficiency built in?
By lemonadesoda on 12/20/2006 4:22:27 PM , Rating: 3
“Nobody will ever use 100 percent of its capability.”
That's a worrying statement. It means one, or more, of the following:

1./ Its too complex even for professional developers

2./ The compilers are not optimised... and they dont think that can, or will, be corrected

3./ It is poorly designed... with the typical game "bottlenecking" in certain functions, leaving processing power idle in others

Oohps, SONY.

By logaldinho on 12/20/2006 1:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
what i dont get is if its going to take years for a team of professional experts to do decent work on the ps3 how are they now even mentioning anything about user created content? unless they mean i can get AIM on my ps3 which is such a great use for all that untapped power sony put under the hood, ive heard it generates 1.21 jigawatts of electricity in order to fully untap its capabilities.

By Assimilator87 on 12/20/2006 2:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone keeps saying that the PS3 is more powerful than the XB360, but I would say the opposite. The only aspect where the PS3 has an edge is processing power and I don't think the extra processing power is even needed. Look at any of the hack n' slashes that have come out recently. They're all about fitting as many enemies on the field as possible and the CPUs don't seem to be taxed very much with all the AI calculations. It's the graphics chips that are the bottleneck and in that field I'd say the Xenos GPU is more powerful than the RSX because it's basically R580 vs G71.

Playstation inferior to Xbox
By TimberJon on 12/20/2006 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
My opinion is my own. Those who agree may, and those who do not, may.

After playing so many games on the playstation, the xbox was like a godsend. Perhaps it was the gfx power, or just the engine that the developers used. Maybe it was core programming or something that the DEV kit provided for all the games to be built around. (doesnt really know) But I know this, I've played PS2 games that were said to be graphically stunning and this and that, and they still never really got better GRAPHICALLY. Dynamically, oh sure! Effects got brighter and more colorful, more animations on the screen.

Currently playing FFXII, and the graphics need alot of smoothing out. But the effects are awesome, the colors good. The only way the Playstation gets better is when the developers do something new with games, or make them visually look better. I dont think the Playstation hardware is capable of it. It just plays the game.. Its like a graphic bottleneck.

Difference between Xbox and 360? Cant really see it. GoW is awesome, I agree. But so was Doom3, Quake4 and Prey. So was PsiOps, and others. Halo, eh, it could have used some work, but looked good enough to not trigger my criticism.

MGS3? Eh. Some things were choppy and always pixelated.

PS3? Still havnt found a cure. If they are really going to bring out "system potential" the load times are going to be higher. Even in FF12 which looks pretty good, the load exceeds 12 seconds sometimes just for moving from one part of the city to another.

MS looked at the Nintendo line and the PS and engineered their system to push past them both. The Wii, graphically I would say looks as beautiful as the 360.

So the King is the 360, Queek the Wii, and Jack of all trades would be the playstation right now. Huge game archive.

Playstation inferior to Xbox
By TimberJon on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2006 3:01:00 AM , Rating: 2
Are you smoking crack?
Wii games are no where near to that of the Xbox 360 graphically!

I don't know much about HD and whatever but I think the Xbox 360 can do HD but the Wii cannot.

If you think a Wii game looks as good as an Xbox 360 game, Gimme' a link. (Want uber Hi-res piccys!)

By Hydrofirex on 12/20/2006 5:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Whether he is implying that the PS3 has limitless potential or that developers will never fully overcome the complexities of the Cell architecture is unclear.

Great piece of sarcasm - very incisive.

Nice one.


Argue all you want...
By gchanjam on 12/20/2006 7:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone can argue endlessly about which system is better or easier to program for or has better graphics but in that article, Harrison clearly said that 2007 will be the year of software and note how Microsoft is pushing their 360 library in their commercials.

People are going to buy which ever system they prefer whether it be based on brand preference, availability, or price. But the thing that sways people the most is the software. I own a 360 and Gears of War, a new Halo, and a few other games like Blue Dragon are very promising for the 360. But I also plan to get a PS3 when they are available and games like a new Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, God of War, and hopefully a spiritual successor to Shadow of the Colossus make the PS3 a winner in my eyes.

Sony has a reason to be confident because they have a very popular brand name in PS and once the shortages die down, they have their software exclusives to rely on.

Obvious much?
By vhx on 12/20/2006 10:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Compare FF7 graphics to FF9. Yeah, it's obvious it takes time to utilize all of the console's potential. Almost all games at launch will will not use the full potential. Give it till 2007 or 2008 until we see the full potential.

By subhajit on 12/21/2006 12:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
Is that really something to be proud of? It means inefficiency. I mean, wouldn't it make more sense if they cut down the hardware and reduce the cost. I think that would make more business sense. Whats the point in making something that you cannot fully utilize?

following MS - a good thing
By otispunkmeyer on 12/21/2006 3:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
He did go on to elaborate that the aim for PlayStation 3 games is to break free from the old model of buying a game, finishing it, and then never to play it again

hasnt MS kinda already done this with live? good to to see sony tagging along

infact i dont dont play much single player anymore and have gotten un-godly hours of online play in. Downloadable content, updates, online play...the games are now actually worth the money becuase theres more life than just the single player in them.

By Wwhat on 12/22/2006 2:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Current sony CEO's only use 10% of their brainpower I hear.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki