i can feel theres gonna be a flame war about this D:

This is what has been said over and over again. The PS3 is much more complex to program for and the only thing that is going to show what the console is truly capable of are first party exclusives. Sony really did completely forget what the point of a console was with this generation. Had the focused on gaming and not house brand processors and blu-ray they might not be falling so far behind.

ps3 will still win at the end

ps3 will still win at the end

sorry for the double post

I disagree i think wii will win if not already won =P

Gameinformer this month has him stating the total system power gives them more to work with as well as the blu-ray advantages(2 disc Rage, 3 disc Doom 4). Other devs have also said it being easy to work with the system once you get used to the different(not hard) way of programming for it. All third party games are now trading blows in terms of performance and visuals. Obviously someone like him prefers a PC style approach considering his background.

"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360,"

"but the PS3 version is lagging behind at only 20 to 30 FPS."

Thats about 200-300% slower.

I love my PS3 but it was a bad idea to go so crazy with the technology and make it hard to program for. I was #1 with Nintendo since the original NES came out(Gamecube and PS2 were a tie probably) but I gave up on them with the Wii, its not how I wanna play. PS3 is #1 with me.

@shex, that is just their current, or previous performance. Does not mean they can't get it to 60 or he would have said that instead.

The processors used in the PS3 aren't "house brand", they are made by IBM, who oddly enough also make the processors for the Xbox 360 and the Wii. The level of power is not really in question on the PS3, as it clearly has more horsepower than it's rivals, but a suitable analogy would be to say it has more RPMs like a car but the way the system reads game data is like having it in 4th gear instead of 5th. The Xbox can get away with having less RPMs but because it is in 5th gear it make the game run faster.

Analogy over. PS3 doesn't suck, but should perform better than it does, I wonder if Sony could do an update to make it more efficient rather than putting the onus on developers to work with their difficult coding parameters.

Personally I don't really feel that the Wii is a X-gen console. I would say that it is current gen in the fact that it is currently being sold but it is more along the lines of the PS2 than it is the Xbox 360/PS3. It only fits in with them the same way that the DS or PS2 does in that they are all game systems. So lumping the Wii with them is like saying that PS2 has won the war because it has sold more consoles that all other consoles combined at something like 150 million and still selling pretty good.

The PS3 helped Sony win the HI Def war but in the process lost the game console war. All the future royalties from blu ray may offset their losses this time around in the game market. They will probably bounce back with the PS4 since their sole focus will be on gaming next time around.

I don't understand something...

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there’s never a dropped frame or a tear, but we’re confident that we’re going to get that."

Does this mean that the PC version will run at 60 FPS, no frame drops, regardless of hardware? How can that claim be made without hardware specifications?

Lost when it's still the middle of the gen?

Oh nice down ranking, when I'm quoting.

@Udnus, no, that is for the console version, PC version with the high end hardware will no doubt put out around 60fps.

Theres alot of games which are rendering significantly less on the ps3.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ [...] al-article

lower resolution
no AA
lower framerate

Thats the reason i play games in PC.... Performance & Video Quality is a lot better.

PC games run > 60 FPS easy at res 1080P or higher.

There is a site that gives a bunch of res and aa comparisons. Eurogamer is such a terrible place for anything. They like to review games with false information and give bad scores.

"Currently the Xbox 360 (and PC version with the right hardware) run at 60 FPS"

LOL... PC version with the right hardware for sure. You'd have to dig for hardware that's 2 or 3 years old to find some as slow as the 360.

@leon2006

Sure for the price you pay....lol. Max your hardware and budget, to run everything, gj.

@ryokinshin

350$ pc better than PS3 and Xbox 360

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=65891

Not really expensive to get 60 FPS out of new games on a PC, and when you factor in the cost of the games is sometimes 50% more for the console version it is very easy to make back the cost of graphics card upgrade in a short amount of time. I reckon 10 games is all it would take to make up the cost of a brand new ATI HD4890.

Sonyjust didn't play their cards right. Putting a blu-ray drive in the thing was a good idea. Putting a cpu that is super powerful but completly different than what the programers are used to was a bad idea.

They should have focused more on graphics power than cpu power and stuck with a more traditional design. The end result is MS having a huge lead in release date and a larger library of games plus developers who are put off by the fact they have to learn new hardware so they can make a game for the smallest demographic in the gaming community.

@shrex, PS3 runs Crysis, $499 from 2006.

@ryokinshin

wat are you on about, any sources.

and when was crysis on ps3

One thing I seem to remember from back when the PS3 was being designed was that they originally felt that the design was very sound and the processing engine was strong enough to handle even the graphics rasterization. But somewhere along the way that changed, and they added an NVidia based graphic processing subset to the PS3. Does anyone know why they changed their minds on the design? The cell processor is a very powerful processor when you are given full access. I still don't see why Sony locked it down with that hypervisor piece. Perhaps someone here knows and would be willing to share?

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ [...] ne-3/47150

@helldog3105, apparently the original PS3 had 2 Cell procs instead of 1 and RSX, but that would have been instant failure.
Crysis 2* and the fact that no other games have looked as good as Crysis up until now, is a bad argument on your PC gaming hardware, 4 series and GTX 2 series are a year old=cheap by now.

well thats running at 1280x720 @30fps not that high. people on pc even a few years ago ago could achieve that on a budget, but they couldnt run it at 1920x1080 @60fps and they complained their pc couldnt run crysis

I think Sony probably decided to go with the Cell Processor purely for marketing reasons. I think they just wanted to outdo Microsoft for specification, after the Xbox 1 shat all over the ps2. The cheapest way for them to get raw floating point performance that looks good on paper would be to make the CPU highly multithreaded, which is what the Cell is. They just assumed programmers would eventually find a way to efficiently program for it.... but this unfortunatly has never happened.