Was not the PS2 the same way?

So they are saying, "the hardware is all there but we want to make money for longer so we throw shit in the way so that devellopers will only discover how to make good use of it after many years of putting out crap instead of just making good games right away, just so we can give the user the false impression that the machine is getting better without the possibility of upgrading the hardware itself".

Lets talk about wii? 320~ for ugly graphic and bad gameplay? and super bad resolution (480p), maybe this is the cheapest next gen consol, but u got nothing for the buck.PS3 have alot of potential, developers need to use it.

did you not read the article?

Nope I only glanced it

I should know better.

I think this is a terrible idea because it punishes creative effort that is surrounded by sub-par programmers. A game that might have an excellent story and gameplay might be rendered useless because the developers couldn't figure out how to work the platform to get a good enough frame-rate. I've read many reviews talking about how the story of a game is good but it is plauged by too many glitches. Who knows how many of those could be solved if the platform were easier to program for?

Since when does and annoying program environment mean higher potential...??? Those two things do not correlate in any way. Because the PS3 is hard to program for does not mean it has a higher upside. The hardware is limited in itself and then you add in the tough programming environment a logical conclusion would mean a LOWER potential.

He made other comments about how confident he was he would outsell the Xbox 360 which was hilarious. If you doubled the PS3 sales and kept the Xbox 360 sales flat it wouldn't be until 2014 until the PS3 caught the 360.

He also made a ridiculous comment about Xbox 360 "longevity" because apparently Sony didn't release a successor to the Playstation 2...oh wait...

I wonder if the translation should have been that the platform is more complex as opposed to more difficult. The PS3 was designed with far more powerful capabilities, but they are different than previous generations of hardware and, in that way, are more difficult.

Sounds like he's trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Except these lemons are rotten.

I don't think it's a bad thing to made something tricky to program--to an extent. Game budgets are ballooning and people are having a rough time meeting deadlines as it is. Sony seems to like having a console that has games look better over time, but we saw eventual improvements in games even for the first Playstation. I'd say that Sony may have overdone it this time.

Killzone 2 looks good, but it also took almost 5 years and a huge budget. Not everyone can afford that, especially with this economy.

I was thinking about buying a PS3 for blueray playback with my new HDTV, but I've just changed my mind completely because of this article. Way to go sony.

"Are you happy with your ps3?" I freaking love my ps3! It doesn't have as many great games as the xbox 360 (which I also own), but the games it does have like MGS4 and Resistance 1&2, Uncharted, Motorstorm, etc are timeless. Sony did not properly explain themselves in this interview. The reality as a gamer is, those who develop on the ps3, are able to develop a much more dynamic and intuitive experience because so much more time was put into making it. Yes, thats not always been the case with all of the case. But, Developers who make a game exclusively for ps3 will definitely show this trend. Blu Ray- while not necessary for most consumers at the moment- will in the next few years give sony a huge advantage as HD resolution becomes a more practical and affordable feature for the market.

Hah, imo, they took the wrong approach.

I mean, evidance lies in the numbers as we discuss.. PS3 is what, third? out of the 3 that are out there.

For one, why make it difficult? You WANT all the subpar games + big games on your console.. because if you don't have the subpar games, what do you play between the larger more intense games?

Play a big game...wait 8 months..play another big game..wait 2 months.. etc..
or
Play big game, play 50 mini games, play big game, play 55 mini games..

Really I don't see their logic behind this, I think they're just making excuses.

the original playstation had like 20% of its power hidden. it wasn't until later in the consoles life did sony release how to access commands that were otherwise hidden? I just remember that being the case way back in the day. I guess almost like nintendo's mode7? *i can't remember all the details of that one.

as though i'm hearing words coming out from a kid.
how come sony/ps3 never said that when it first came out?

if that's the case, i'll be seeing next generation xbox and nintendo consoles still easy to make games and ps3 remains difficult.

Look at the money Sony has lost so far and by the time Game developers learn how to take advantage of the PS3's full power the Xbox720(what ever it will be called) will be out and probably capable of far better graphics.

is every tomshardware article going to end with a series of questions begging for user comments?
bah.

See Metal Gear Solid 4 i think they cracked the code of Sony, the game is simply amazing. Moreover due to the excelent hardware built in inside PS3 is still one of the best Blue-Ray players in the market. So before thinking of revenge just buy what is best for your money.

I don't know about cracked,it probably cost a fortune to make a game like MGS4,I'm a PC guy and if I had to buy a console it would be the PS3 for the Blue ray player to go with my new 40 inch LCD so the BlueRay player is a major selling point. honestly though I think he is lying when he said they deliberately made it hard for game developers, they put the most powerful hardware in the PS3 thinking the game developers would figure it out like they did with the PS2 but it kind of backfired on them.

Well, that explains why 'some' games look better on the Xbox360 when they first came out.

And wit the Xbox720 coming out in 2011-12 you can imagine how powerful and cheap hardware will be by then... the PS3 will be obsolete. things don't look good for a console that cost more to produce then it's MSRP. I really done get sony's logic, usually devs get 1 game in a trilogy per Console, 2 at the most. So why are they making an already difficult task harder???

LESS games made on it means less interest for you and I to buy the PS3, Less PS3's sold means LESS profits for devs, higher man-hours spent to produce and PROGRAM the game means LESS profits for devs...so why would devs ,unless bribed by Sony want to make games on the PS3?

In other news SCEI head Kazuo Hirai also declared that Sony had purposefully lost $1.7 billion dollars in order to ensure the company would have plenty of growth to look forward to in the future.

all i know is that I own a PS3 and i'm very bored

i have a PS3. sold my 360. got both on launch day. never had a RROD. much happier with my PS3. i played my PS3's exclusive content a lot more, and game feel more realistic, especially in FIFA and Madden. And the only problem i have with the PS3's online capablility is the slow download speeds, i can't take full advantage of my FiOS. should only take seconds to download firmware updates, instead takes about 12 minutes. i enjoy the ps3 exclusives more than 360's, halo to me is overplayed, and overhyped, and not that great looking for how people have raved about it, the Halo:combat evolved however, still a regular of mine for xbox lan parties. gamespot does a lot of graphics comparisons pointing out jaggies and textures, i dont look that close when i play...im about 8-10 feet away from my screen...the recommended viewing distance, and the colors, blacks, and whites are all more vivid, dark, and bright on the PS3. still have not found a game more interesting than MGS4, or more fun to play online than Resistance 2. waiting for Killzone 2, SF:IV, and GOW III.

I own all three. I like the ps3 the best. Wii second and 360 last. I'm tired of having to ship that pos to get fixed. Halo 3 got old quick gears 2 was to short and the same old. I am back into playing metal gear again. I could care less abount quantity... The top ps3 games are without a doubt worth the money I spent on my 60 gig back when it came out

It's all marketing spin. Their console is difficult to develop for and they use this as a means to justify it. In light of the fact that PS3 is getting it's butt whooped by the Wii, Mr. seems to be on a press junket of claiming victory despite facts. Recently he was saying that PS3 is the #1 console and dismissing the Wii as competition. It's all posturing.

Meanwhile, regarding the question of platform usage.. my first "next gen" console was the PS3 because I wanted a blu-ray player and frankly the PS3 plays the with better quality than most blu-ray players at that time that cost twice as much, and I got a game console to boot. It's initial capabilities as a network media player initially were embarrassingly pathetic. But these days with the upgrades and TVersity, it serves the job well enough for most folks.

I also have a XBOX 360 but that is pure game console to us, no other function is expected from it and it only ties the PS3 for active playtime. Not that the XBox 360 could not also be a media player, just that role is already filled to our satisfaction so our purchase was purely for game reasons and nothing else.

We have a Wii + Wiifit, making it the most played console at our house, but we don't play any games on it after the initial honeymoon period wears off (just like most folks go through with Wiis) but the Wii Fit leapfrogged it to #1 status because between my wife and I it gets a play session every day, usually one from each of us. So time wise since November, the Wii is now our most played console.

I can understand that Kazuo Hirai has to find some legs to stand on and prop up the poor PS3 sales, especially when Sony is posting operating losses for the first time in 14 years (2.9 billion). The man is trying to save his job and perhaps his division.

Despite all of that, I still rather like my PS3.

Now we know why there is a glut of original games. Obviously, the Unreal engine can work well for a bunch of massmarket games - and will serve the purposes of big studios - it's hard to make a game that pushes gameplay forward (on all platforms, these days)

It seems to me, Sony is rely saying, we don't care how much the PS3 SDK "software development kit" adds to the cost of your new game. Why should we, that is your risk to take. Sony dose not care about the development cost of third party titles. In fact what we rely want is for third party developers to fail. Sony does not need greedy software developers who fail to realize that it is all about the PS3 hardware and NOT the games you can play. Just look at the endless supply of Sony PS3 Fan boys shouting how great the PS3 is despite the fact that has the fewest good titles of all the consoles. Oh wait, that's why Sony console are getting there teeth kicked in in Europe and the US. Sony screwed the pooch with the PS3 and anyone who looked at the SDK new it was a total cluster-f**k. Sony needs to make some changes in there console division. They can't keep playing like they are the top dog, because they aren't. That ship has sailed. Sony can either make the changes needed or there next console will be there last. A neat piece of hardware with no one writing software for it. We should all have pity on the suckers that buy one of those.

I would not be quick to bash Sony for an article stating an opinion, that stems from another article with quotes translated from an another language (especially an eastern one). Too much room for misleading information.

The fact is that the PS3, is a way superior console technically speaking. Its design is superior, and its power as well. Perhaps the fact that it uses a Cell BE Processor, is what is throwing developers off. It does not operate like a normal processor, so certain tasks need to be developed differently, to take full advantage of its power. This is why you will find many researchers, and scientists using them (with their own software, which puts its power to use). I read an article stating that facial image recognition is 27 times faster on the PS3 Cell BE Processor than an Intel Core2 Duo. TWENTY SEVEN. You can find many examples of what others have hacked the PS3 to do, including supercomputing.

The fact is, its a steal to get that hardware for the price. The Xbox is rather lame in comparison, and like it is stated in the referring article, the wii... well its really its own category. In my opinion, both Nintendo and Sony are industry leaders, wii killed by thinking out of the box, and being creative -- Sony developed a console with specs that when fully used, will create amazing results.

Personally, I got my eye on the revised version coming soon. Price should drop, it should be quieter, will consume less power. Other than playing games, def. will install linux, and will be used mostly as a media center/dvr.

I think he is correct. I believe the reason Sony is getting attacked so harsh is they are forcing Ms to upgrade there console because of Blu Ray they know they can only hold out so long Ms has to do it first You know Sony won't. So i agree and approve of this message. As far as the topic of the development I believe they are correct it makes Developers work, so it fans out the trash as you would call it. It is a risky plan, but the way it works it is working making alot of news against them. Usually when threatened is when things lash out and I noticed alot of lashing out.

Perhaps the PS3's (and Sony's) fates might have been a bit better off had Sony not assumed that innertia from the PS1 and PS2 would keep them on top this generation, and instead, did what kept them successful, and focused on a platform that lagged behind some others in terms of graphics and processing power, but presented a platform that was inexpensive to own, and compelling as a media device. (the PS1's CD player, and bigger yet, the PS2's DVD player)

It's true that at first, the high cost of the Blu-Ray player was a major factor in the PS3's high cost, but also present were Sony's insistence on using a fully-scaled CBE CPU, which is NEVER utilized for gaming. The CBE is good for 32-bit single-precision floating-point used for decoding and encoding streaming media, but horrific at 64-bit double-precision floating-point that's actually used in games; a lot of Core2Duos, (like the E8400) and all Core2Quads and Core i7s best it there. (that, and even harvesting THAT much power from the PS3 requires programming for no fewer than 7 hardware threads, compared to 2-4) For what it does, it was a massive waste; it's utter overkill for handling high-def media, even with some filters used. And of course, it wasn't necessary to cram the highest-end filtering into a $500-600US device; kinda sheer idiocy to make what was one of the cheapest players of the time by far the best. Better to simply make it merely sufficient to handle it without taking quality-degrading "shortcuts," and hence make it cheaper to produce.

Also, they might've made a few better choices for the graphics sub-system. With the GPU having access to only 256MB of video RAM directly, it has to steal anything further from the CPU's pool of XDRAM, which comes at VASTLY lower memory bandwidth, and bandwidth which is ALSO stolen from the CPU's usage. This actually more or less entails that the PS3's graphical capabilies, in many games, actually lag behind the Xbox 360, in spite of being more expensive. It's slightly offset by the fact that as the RSX GPU is, more or less, just a cut-down G71, it cannot use Anti-Aliasing in any games using HDR, more or less freeing up some graphics processing power that's normally taken on the Xbox 360 and its mandate that all games use AA on it. This is usually shown as higher resolutions; virtually all PS3 games can actually run natively at 1280x720 without using a sub-HD resolution and upscaling to 720p like the Xbox 360 does. (Halo 3 is some 1138x640, and Oblivion&Fallout 3 are a mere 1024x576)

An "unintended and unfortunate" consequence of some of these cutbacks is that it might've been a bit easier to get the full power out of the PS3, by making it a tad simpler. Of course, also partly because there'd be less power to exploit, but that sort of potential is really one that can't be reasonably made use of in a normal game; if it DOES use up that much processing power, it's because something's hideously unoptimized.