Most developers have been pretty adamant: "No, we don't want any new consoles just yet."

But one publisher thinks we need a new round of consoles soon, because innovation and originality is starting to go out the window. In speaking to MCV , Ubisoft co-founder and CEO Yves Guillemot claims there just isn't "enough creativity" at the end of a console's life cycle:

"Consumers like the current formats, but there is not enough creativity at the end of a cycle to really spark the business. If we look at the industry’s history we see that there are times when it is right to introduce new IP and times when it is harder. At this stage in the consoles’ life cycles it is possible to do new IP, but it will be more attractive when new consoles come along. That’s when consumers are more open to trying new things."

On top of which, Guillemot believes that even those developers who don't want the next generation to happen too soon will benefit: "They can try new things because the consumer expects and wants new things." Well, that may be true, but isn't it also true that it takes a developer time to come to terms with new hardware, especially where PlayStation is concerned?

At any rate, Microsoft and Nintendo will likely grant Ubisoft's wish long before Sony.

Subscribe
Notify of
86 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

Whoa there Ubi….CHILL!!!!!

Just try squeezing more out of what you have now.

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

(I meant consoles, not AC4,5,6,7,8,9,10 in the next year)


Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/12/2011 10:14:19 PM

FM23
FM23
9 years ago

Classic…lol

Cesar_ser_4
Cesar_ser_4
9 years ago

you really think ubisoft maxed out the ps3?

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what he's saying.

Kiryu
Kiryu
9 years ago

Ubisoft means that they want Microsoft and Nintendo to catch to the PS3 in the Next Generation!

Dancemachine55
Dancemachine55
9 years ago

My thoughts exactly.

The Wii in particular is a LOOOOOOOONG way behind the competiton, now that MS has Kinect and Sony has Move.

BTW, I finally got a Move yesterday, and Heavy Rain is un-freakin-believable with it!!! Playing with a Move controller just makes so much sense with a game like that!!!

Dead Space Extraction too is far more enjoyable with a Move than a controller!

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

Indeed. The biggest problem with this generation is the 360 and the US population that keep buying it.

SvenMD
SvenMD
9 years ago

Yeah I played 10 minutes of Dead Space Extraction and then realized that I need a Move before I actually try to tackle that game!

JMO_INDY
JMO_INDY
9 years ago

The US isn't the only country that still buys that POS, wake up and grow up MaxPontiac, it still has a strong place in Europe as well.

BTNwarrior
BTNwarrior
9 years ago

well I have one good thing that could come out of new consoles releasing sooner. If there was a new generation of consoles released I doubt that activision could get away with still using the COD2 engine

kraygen
kraygen
9 years ago

maybe, but you know they'd probably try.

friction
friction
9 years ago

And people would surely buy. Sigh…

cLoudou
cLoudou
9 years ago

Why are they looking forward to the next gen? They barely even done anything this gen.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I know, right?

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Ha, TRUTH!

frylock25
frylock25
9 years ago

what a load of crap. make a new ip, make it a good game. people will buy it. dont release it early either. if it needs time to get rid of bugs and glitches and polish it then do that.

seriously what the hell is wrong with them?!?! i want new stuff all the time!! oh wait here we go morons, sony has a new system comin out… support that. flood it with "new ip's" all you want. its new and people will want new stuff. so there it is every one because its new and people will want new stuff we will get new ips on the ngp.

at this stage in the consoles life i want to see great games! i dont care if it is a new ip or sequal. hell it could be a reboot of an old game for all i care.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

In other words, they're tired of scaling down multi-plats to the lowest common denominator.

What? STFU! I'll believe blindly what I want to believe!

Healthy gamble though…


Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/12/2011 10:18:03 PM

JMO_INDY
JMO_INDY
9 years ago

They're saying this because they're not creating anything original beyond AC for this gen and they feel left out. I don't believe with games (epic games at that) coming out in the next couple of months and later this year, such as Uncharted 2 and inFamous 2 just to name a couple. I'd say this gen isn't out of the race yet (well at least not the PS3). Though a new console batch would be cool; from a technical standpoint and spec POV, I think I can hold out for a few more years.

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

I have a hard time buying his point. Devs can be very creative still. It sounds to me that he's scared to make a move on a new IP without new hardware to propagate it.

Sort of like the proverbial " self fullfilled prophecy".

The X Factor 9
The X Factor 9
9 years ago

I'm looking forward to seeing UbiSoft make a few more good games THIS generation before I'm even remotely interested in investing in new gaming hardware.

kraygen
kraygen
9 years ago

Ubisofts way of saying that they have no idea's and they need an excuse. What does console generation have to do with being creative? You have some fresh idea's ubisoft? Well let's see them, because from what I'm seeing, you just don't have much to offer.

FM23
FM23
9 years ago

Agreed.

shadowscorpio
shadowscorpio
9 years ago

Yup. When a dev wants to hide behind a band new console released into the industry, they say its "needed in order to inspire creaivity". What a load. Until the majority of devs are saying the same, we will keep what is here right now thank you.

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

I also believe it's because of the DVD size limitations.

PasteNuggs
PasteNuggs
9 years ago

Uhh, I don't think them saying that starting a new IP at the end of console generation is a legit excuse. If I'm not mistaken, most series just continue on too the next generation and just get better.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Eeyea….learn to code properly for this gen consoles first Ubisoft.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Nonsense at every level. I'm sorry your games are stuck on DVDs on a stripped down PC in plastic but you could run wild on PS3 if you dumbsh*ts really wanted to be creative.

And no, when a new console generation comes out people are very afraid to spend even more money on the gamble that a new IP will be worth the money because they just spent a ton so they are more likely to get sequels to existing franchises until the tech is fully grasped.

Bloodysilence19
Bloodysilence19
9 years ago

the hardware in next gen consoles are fine. there are some points do need some upgrades. ms does need to get rid of that dvd crap and either make agreement to use blu ray or start using dual layer dvd just to have more space than 9gb. sony doesn't need to change much either their cpu is actually good they just need a upgrade of the gpu so we could really see top notch visuals like how some pc games are. ubisoft i think is saying this cause their games are just becoming sequels rather than a new ip. 360 got year left till ms needs a new console, ps3 got 2-3 years tops till a new sony console, and Nintendo they just need hd console already, so i can see Nintendo teasing a new console this year at e3.


Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 4/12/2011 10:51:28 PM

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

9 GB is dual-layer.

tridon
tridon
9 years ago

Oh, yeah… because they've done so much this generation. All that comes to mind is an over-abundance of Assassin's Creed titles, some PoP games, a crappy Splinter Cell and an exclusive-to-M$ Splinter Cell, a bunch of HD remakes and a Michael Jackson game. I'm probably missing some but really, I'm doubting that they need a new set of consoles already. Hey, Ubisoft, crazy idea… rather than spending your time worrying about the next generation of consoles, why don't you develop Beyond Good & Evil 2 instead?

FM23
FM23
9 years ago

So true, Ubisoft is known for AC and nothing more nowadays.

Dancemachine55
Dancemachine55
9 years ago

Hang on people, you're being a little naive here.

Ubisoft is quite massive really. Sure, most only think of Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed when you say Ubisoft, but they're even bigger in the casual gaming department.

1. Assasson's Creed
2. Splinter Cell
3. Prince of Persia
4. Ghost Recon
5. Farcry
6. Just Dance (Wii)
7. Michael Jackson: The Experience
8. Rocksmith
9. Shaun White
10. Driver: San Francisco
11. H.A.W.X.
12. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
13. The Imagine Series (DS)
14. Red Steel
15. No More Heroes
16. Avatar
17. Raving Rabbids

So Ubisoft, before you go mouthing off and asking for a new generation of consoles, how bout trying something new with the current gen consoles other than Assassin's Creed and Farcry? Everything else you do is tied to a certain person or brand, eg. Tom Clancy, Michael Jackson and films.

___________
___________
9 years ago

dont forget rainbow six.
loved vegas, not so much vegas 2.
wish ubisoft would hurry up and announce a new rainbow six game!

speaking of driver SF, ben you seen anything on it?
xplay says its coming out this month, but we have seen almost nothing about it since its reveal last year!
i swear to god the worlds going to end if this gets canned too!


Last edited by ___________ on 4/13/2011 9:50:13 AM

FxTales
FxTales
9 years ago

Remember in the south park movie when Terrance slapped Brooke Shields in the face? Someone needs to slap Ubisoft.

Kiryu
Kiryu
9 years ago

Ubisoft y can't u make a PS3 Exclusive like Rockstar and Sucker Punch to keep up with Games like Infamous 2 which surpass current games Open World in every Way!

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

As many of you have expressed herein, I think UbiSoft is jumping the gun. Whilst I understand that UbiSoft may have some "frustrations" developing for consoles such as the 360 and Wii, the PS3 is just hitting its stride now.

I think games like Uncharted 3 will show developers what can be done if the right programming and optimisation techniques are employed and used on the PS3. No doubts it is getting more and more difficult to squeeze juice out of our black baby, but she still has some go in her, and this years line up of exclusives will show this.

UbiSoft (and to some extent, other 3rd party developers), may feel similar that the cost of developing titles for 360 and PS3 separately is just to difficult to bare, they have to combine development as we have seen throughout this gen – and therefore may feel frustrated that they cannot get the best out of the said target platforms.

Needless to say, having spent about half a day trawling through many of Digital Foundry's Face Off articles (comparing technical differences between the 360 and PS3), its overwhelmingly evident that the PS3 has come out second best most of the time thanks to non-exclusive development cost and time constraints. Multi-platform technologies and aging engines have not helped the matter. Yes, the PS3 exclusives do shine, for the most part, but at a bit of stretched.

The Sony exclusive tech has improved over this life cycle, with the only exception of having to endure poor shadow casting affects for both exclusive and non-exclusive games (some games do a better job than others) – a testament to the huge calculation overheads required that our hyped super HD next generation consoles where supposed to have handled with ease – but that is for another time to discuss…

The question of 3D may also, in part, be on the minds of UbiSoft executives. They may be looking at film worlds presented in motion pictures such as Avatar; they may want to create experiences closer to this for gamers in proper 3D HD (for each eye) – they know too well, as we do, that the current crop of 3D titles are more of a "try and see if it can be done to any great effect" situation. A situation where Sony and M$ in particular want to extend the life cycle of these aging units as far as possible into the future, but at the same time selling us a cheapish derivative of what true HD 3D gaming should be.

(As you all know, I have always advocated 3D gaming will be for the PS4 age… when the platform bandwidth is 4 to 6 times what it is on the current PS3.)

UbiSoft may feel that if they develop advanced 3D games for the PC platform, with todays Fermi and Sandibridge chips they can give new I.P. their just deserves technically, and would like new customers to experience these I.P's the way they should be experienced and not dumbed down…

UbiSoft may simply be saying – we need more power, and we need it now… we want equivalence with what the PC has today and not have to wait another 5 years for it!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"


Last edited by Qubex on 4/13/2011 12:41:03 AM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Personally, I believe that if we wait a couple more years for a new platform, the hardware (at least from Sony) will be sufficient for real time ray tracing at 1080p resolution. I'd rather wait for that and let the talented devs apply that technology to 3D games than see the constant dependence on GPU chip sets for certain functionality continue.

Imagine a Power7 derivative biased for games and media combined with a modern Fermi design from nVidia. That would be a system to be reckoned with.

JMO_INDY
JMO_INDY
9 years ago

mmmm Power 7 from IBM *drools* What a lackluster name though :/

___________
___________
9 years ago

ray tracings a pipe dream!
we need to get all games running in 1080P, then all games running in 60FPS, before we start worrying about things like that!

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

Great point Qubex. The PS3 is hitting it's stride, with several years left in it's tank.

It's why I believe every developer should focus on the PS3 first, and port it to the 360 and it's 2-4 DVDs.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

@Mr Anonymous Coward (I'd use a name, except you have none),

Ray tracing is a pipe dream? Tell that to Intel who were pushing experimental ray tracing on high end PC systems about 4-5 years ago. The lighting models of many games already use a simplified form of ray tracing as it stands. Fully ray tracing helps with a lot of things that we otherwise have to do, such as hidden object removal, clipping, collision detection, and so forth. To do ray tracing you model everything in 3D, I'll not over do the glorification of ray tracing, but in many ways it simplifies and unifies a lot of what graphics engines have to do. It requires a lot of computing grunt, but not so much GPU power. Funnily enough, I seem to remember IBM showing real time ray tracing on multi-cell test beds without a GPU in sight before PS3 launched. Considering what the Power7 architecture is capable of, it should be within the grasp of designers.

The PS3 as it stands now can do 3D at 720p, depending on the post effects involved. 1080p is only twice the number of pixels, and the next console generation will be far more than double the performance of the current one. If Sony stick true to their commitment of being state of the art at launch to maintain as long a life for the product as possible, then a system emerging 6-7 years after the PS3 could have sufficient compute power to perform real time ray tracing.

Perhaps it's a dream, perhaps not. But considering that the PS3 already does full stereoscopic 3D, ray tracing is the next logical step. I think you're too entranced by the CPU/GPU model of the PC architecture. Remember in ray tracing, you don't farm the graphics off to the GPU, you simply have a lot of computing power to power the ray tracing engine and use the GPU for specific effects and elements like full screen filtering and anti-aliasing. If you look at the PS3 architecture, if you ran it at a lower resolution, perhaps 480p, you might actually be able to pull off real time raytracing in a game on the PS3. If the Cell were 4 times as powerful, you might be able to pull off realtime ray tracing at something like 1080p, perhaps s little under full 1080p, but scaled up to full 1080p. Either way, it's feasible.

OK, it could be a dream, but technically, it's doable. Wouldn't it be awesome if it could be done?

Regarding your name. *If* you used a name I could type, I'd use it, but since you persist in using the non-name, I'll persist in calling you Anonymous Coward – since you took such offense to Anonymous Cowherd.

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Highlander, lets refrain from calling people names. Anonymous can bring up valid points from time to time. Everyone here has value, it is a valuable community; let's not bash each other. There is enough hate and disgust in this world as it is…

Back to the topic at hand.

Sony said to us we were at the cutting edge of gaming technology in 2005/06 with the release of the PS3. They advertised true HD gaming at 1080p, with a machine capable of decoding hundreds of HD streams simultaneously etc. They never once mentioned 3D stereoscopic gaming at that point.

Maybe their marketing people did not realise it, or maybe they did, but they were hyping the machine to the stratosphere, as if in 2005/06, this machine could do real time ray-tracing, it could do things that now we can clearly see actually takes a lot of work to do, and to do properly.

We see it clearly with the multi platform games as well, in fact we see that it is even difficult to get decent AA using multi platform engines because of the loading stresses on the RSX compared to the agility of the 360's ATI GPU.

Thank goodness for the Cell. It is because of the Cell that the PS3 has had the "small" advantage to process data in incredible ways, permitting developers to do a lot more than they thought they could do initially.

As mentioned before 3D has been a bolt on, but there is quite a noticeable drop in resolution when implementing this. I am not saying it is not effective. It is and seems to work pretty well for the early adopters. The technical heads know very well though, that there is cheating going on, and they know the hardware is not quite up to the task.

What I have felt all along, is that Sony were clever enough to bring out a machine, that at a stretch, it could do what they original said it could do BUT, for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box and without major constraints. This is the crucial point. Multi platform games and exclusive should have been presented in 1080p as standard and there should not be such poor shadow problems as we see with may games (due to computational constraints) etc. In fact many of the standard multi platform games have come in below resolution in some cases, even below the standard 720p!!! What is all that about when the machine was supposed to be capable of streaming and decoding "hundreds of HD streams simultaneously".

The machine was over hyped and underpowered, at I feel in the past 5 years, I admit, and even Sony my admit too, that the pace of GPU and CPU development has been so rapid, that actually, the PS3 has aged quicker than anticipated. This can happen, no one can see the future that clearly, but one has to admit the market has moved quickly, and will move quicker in the future.

Getting to your point about the real-time ray-tracing, and what the PS4 should be capable of doing… Firstly Sony really do need to create a machine that is WELL ahead of its time. I.e. if they say it can do 1080p HD in true stereoscopic it must do it… and do it comfortably and not at a squeeze. Don't tell me it can, then all the games come out at 720p stereoscopic… whats the point then. Rather be honest and tell me exactly what the machine can do so consumers can decide to go with it or the flexibility of powerful PC rig (that is if they want to spend the money).

Yes there is a price difference, and for some people that matters, BUT I would rather buy an advertised product whereby if it were advertised to do 720p and do it well, then that is fine for me.

Yes, it would be great if it could do 1080p, and we know it has the capabilities to do it at a push, but don't tell me it can by default, and that everything will come out for it at 1080p by default, when in reality it is a real push and strain to perform at that resolution.

I would much rather know it can do 720p well and everything else is a bonus – and if games come out in 720p by default, I know that they will look good, the will have AA (without a push), I will have good clean crisp shadowing (without a push); basically the frame looks good, high end with silly artifacts and other nasties that make games look inferior to what they should be.

Similarly with the ray-tracing adage. If Sony tauts the PS4 as been "able" to do real-time ray-tracing; knowing full well it can but at the machines limits, and they don't communicate that to us… we will be in the same position as we are now.

In 4 years time I will be writing similarly; look, this game should be presenting real-time ray-tracing environments but hey, guess what, the developers said they can't. They don't have enough power to have ray-tracing and a 32 player multi-player game.

Or look, we could do ray-tracing, that is great for light occlusion effects and/or texture specularity effects, but I am sorry, we will have to use a cheap shadow mapping method because we just can't squeeze any more out of it. In fact we need to turn ray-tracing off to give you a great gaming experience.

If the above happens… then this is unacceptable for me; and I am sure others as well.

Again, if you gonna hype, hype so you know the machine can do it and do it easily… don't tell me it can, when maybe it really can, but only at a huge push, and only if developers develop for it exclusively with special programming and optimisation trickery that multi-platform developers would never employ.

That is my fear for the PS4…

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"


Last edited by Qubex on 4/13/2011 9:59:41 PM

JMO_INDY
JMO_INDY
9 years ago

Can you imagine the discussions the 360 fans have? Probably about a new sub-par disc or something and how COD is still cool, and we talk about Ray-Tracing LOL

thj_1980
thj_1980
9 years ago

______________ OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS, for once I agree with you.

He's right guys, I do want my games all at 60fps since it's easy on the eyes. True that the xbox 360 has a better framerate since it's gpu is better and can push out more pixles or something maybe not pixles but it's GPU is a unified structure which makes the anti aliasing much better. I reliazed in the SOCOM 4 beta that the anti aliasing is terrible in it is a sore to my eyes. This person actually made a true point for once in their life.

Ray tracing, not so much for ps3, considering it would take more time and tech but in. At the time of development I'm sure they didn't have the time and money to perfect the GPU and CPU to thier full potential as of today. I kind of think the ps3 and launch of GT5 are simular since, they were only partially complete.

I hope in the next generation of console we can get rid of standard tvs since, really a pain most ps3 games play in subHD. All you cheapos, get a HD TV this instant!!!!!!

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Qubex,

Regarding names for our dear Anonymous Coward, that is the standard anonymous name used on many comment forums all over the Internet, he posts no name, so I will call him the same thing I call every other anonymous poster. If it was name calling I wanted, I'm certain I could think of something far more insulting than a standard default name used all across the Internet.

As for your points about the PS3, I think you are applying your inflated expectations of what the PS3 *should* be capable of to what it is actually capable of. As you correctly pointed out, stereoscopic 3D wasn't even mentioned at launch, it's an entirely new capability that has been added in firmware. I think you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cell BE and the PS3 architecture. The RSX was added to supplement the CellBE. The system design/concept did not originally include a GPU. Your point about Anti-aliasing is missing the mark. The ATI GPU includes specific functionality to handle FS AA, even includeing eDRAM to handle the task, but the eDRAM isn't even spec'd to a full 720p frame! As has been seen in recent games, the Cell is very capable of handling anti-aliasing work in addition to other things, it's all a matter of prioritizing the work.

You're extremely negative about the PS3 throughout your comment slating it for aging too fast, for not being capable of things *you* say it should be capable of and for not being a 360 architecturally. Frankly, I think you're way, way off base. The GPU in the PS3 has aged, probably faster than anticipated, but the CellBE has not. Absolutely has not. You still can't buy a commodity processor that can outpace the CellBE, and that is 5 years after the thing became commercially available. Claiming that the data processing advantage that the CellBE offers is 'small' is – IMHO – ludicrous. The 6 available SPUs and the interconnecting Bus allows the Cell to process data in streams in ways that the Xenon processor in the 360 cannot, and in fact, in ways in which no x86 design can either. If you want to just look at the SPUs as additional cores, they are dual issue cores running at 3.2GHz, that leaves the PS3 running 7 dual issue cores at 3.2GHz vs 3 dual issue cores at 3 GHz in the 360. This is not a small advantage just looking at the bare numbers, but when you consider that the SPUs can each be tasked with separate tasks or used in groups, in parallel, or in series, they are far more than Floating point units as they feature a RISC instruction set that allows them to be fully programmable, and not simple co-processors. I have noted that many articles in certain apparently objective online 'journals' tend to take quite a slant at the PS3 technology when attempting to assess it. I believe this stems in part from being so biased to the PC architectural model and a heavy reliance on the GPU.

Honestly though, after setting very high expectations for the PS3 in your own mind, that it cold not meet, you then go ahead and do the same thing again for the PS4. If the PS4 arrives and is capable of doing real time ray tracing at 720p/1080i are you honestly going to criticize it for that? If the thing is capable of real time ray tracing at that resolution, it doesn't preclude if from being capable of full stereoscopic 3D at 1080p using a more traditional programming model.

The objective of the PS3 design is to place as much compute power as possible in the hands of the developer and let them use it in whatever way they can. The PS4 will, I hope, follow that same philosophy. I really think your assessment of the PS3 hardware is way off base. Your statement that it has "aged quicker than anticipated" is I feel, simply a provocative statement because it really bears no resemblance to the situation as I see it.

I think that this statement about the PS3 from your post illustrates the main issue in your thought process regarding the PS3 and potential PS4;

"for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box "

I'm sorry, but I believe you are extremely wrong on this point. I feel that the machine has exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations. However you used the word 'should' which suggests that actually you are saying that it falls below your expectations of it's capabilities, rather than falling below some objective statement of expectations.

I think we will have to agree to differ here because I retain a much more optimistic point of view both of the PS3's technology (especially the Cell BE) than you do. I do hope though that we can agree that PS3 exclusives continue to stretch the machine still, and that in fact the hardware is capable of a lot more than many multi-platform games would demonstrate. I don't know the specific reasons for that lack in multi-platform games but I have a suspicion that it's a combination of PC developers stuck in a PC development mindset and the 360 development environment specifically designed to be PC-alike for developers. Rather than learning to exploit the PS3 architecture, developers have relied on compilers to help them out.

Still some multi-plat devs are getting on with it, and I respect them immensely. But that's nothing to do with the PS3s technology being inferior or not good enough, rather it's more to do with developers and their areas of focus.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Qubex,

Regarding names for our dear Anonymous Coward, that is the standard anonymous name used on many comment forums all over the Internet, he posts no name, so I will call him the same thing I call every other anonymous poster. If it was name calling I wanted, I'm certain I could think of something far more insulting than a standard default name used all across the Internet.

As for your points about the PS3, I think you are applying your inflated expectations of what the PS3 *should* be capable of to what it is actually capable of. As you correctly pointed out, stereoscopic 3D wasn't even mentioned at launch, it's an entirely new capability that has been added in firmware. I think you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cell BE and the PS3 architecture. The RSX was added to supplement the CellBE. The system design/concept did not originally include a GPU. Your point about Anti-aliasing is missing the mark. The ATI GPU includes specific functionality to handle FS AA, even includeing eDRAM to handle the task, but the eDRAM isn't even spec'd to a full 720p frame! As has been seen in recent games, the Cell is very capable of handling anti-aliasing work in addition to other things, it's all a matter of prioritizing the work.

You're extremely negative about the PS3 throughout your comment slating it for aging too fast, for not being capable of things *you* say it should be capable of and for not being a 360 architecturally. Frankly, I think you're way, way off base. The GPU in the PS3 has aged, probably faster than anticipated, but the CellBE has not. Absolutely has not. You still can't buy a commodity processor that can outpace the CellBE, and that is 5 years after the thing became commercially available. Claiming that the data processing advantage that the CellBE offers is 'small' is – IMHO – ludicrous. The 6 available SPUs and the interconnecting Bus allows the Cell to process data in streams in ways that the Xenon processor in the 360 cannot, and in fact, in ways in which no x86 design can either. If you want to just look at the SPUs as additional cores, they are dual issue cores running at 3.2GHz, that leaves the PS3 running 7 dual issue cores at 3.2GHz vs 3 dual issue cores at 3 GHz in the 360. This is not a small advantage just looking at the bare numbers, but when you consider that the SPUs can each be tasked with separate tasks or used in groups, in parallel, or in series, they are far more than Floating point units as they feature a RISC instruction set that allows them to be fully programmable, and not simple co-processors. I have noted that many articles in certain apparently objective online 'journals' tend to take quite a slant at the PS3 technology when attempting to assess it. I believe this stems in part from being so biased to the PC architectural model and a heavy reliance on the GPU.

Honestly though, after setting very high expectations for the PS3 in your own mind, that it cold not meet, you then go ahead and do the same thing again for the PS4. If the PS4 arrives and is capable of doing real time ray tracing at 720p/1080i are you honestly going to criticize it for that? If the thing is capable of real time ray tracing at that resolution, it doesn't preclude if from being capable of full stereoscopic 3D at 1080p using a more traditional programming model.

The objective of the PS3 design is to place as much compute power as possible in the hands of the developer and let them use it in whatever way they can. The PS4 will, I hope, follow that same philosophy. I really think your assessment of the PS3 hardware is way off base. Your statement that it has "aged quicker than anticipated" is I feel, simply a provocative statement because it really bears no resemblance to the situation as I see it.

I think that this statement about the PS3 from your post illustrates the main issue in your thought process regarding the PS3 and potential PS4;

"for the majority of the time it actually FALLS BELOW what the machine should have been able to do out of the box "

I'm sorry, but I believe you are extremely wrong on this point. I feel that the machine has exceeded all but the most optimistic expectations. However you used the word 'should' which suggests that actually you are saying that it falls below your expectations of it's capabilities, rather than falling below some objective statement of expectations.

I think we will have to agree to differ here because I retain a much more optimistic point of view both of the PS3's technology (especially the Cell BE) than you do. I do hope though that we can agree that PS3 exclusives continue to stretch the machine still, and that in fact the hardware is capable of a lot more than many multi-platform games would demonstrate. I don't know the specific reasons for that lack in multi-platform games but I have a suspicion that it's a combination of PC developers stuck in a PC development mindset and the 360 development environment specifically designed to be PC-alike for developers. Rather than learning to exploit the PS3 architecture, developers have relied on compilers to help them out.

Still some multi-plat devs are getting on with it, and I respect them immensely. But that's nothing to do with the PS3s technology being inferior or not good enough, rather it's more to do with developers and their areas of focus.

___________
___________
9 years ago

1st i thought we were talking about the ps3, not the PC.
2nd the ps3 CAN do allot of things, so lets see it!
once we get games running 60FPS, 1080P, at least 8xMSAA then ill think about effects like ray tracing.
till then, its going for icing before you have the cake.
what systems actually can do always seems to lag behind what they actually do, i mean am i the only one who remembers father ken promising ps3 games running in 1080P and 60FPS?
one thing ps3 games really need to improve on is AA, will be interesting to see if anyone adopts the tech lucas arts developed during TFU2 though they have not used it yet.
before we go searching for the key, lets find the chest first ay?
ray tracing is nice, but frame rate and proper AA is much higher on the priority list!

in theory the ps3 can run physX too, but has the ps3 used it properly yet?
put the PC version of mafia 2 up against the ps3 version and you will have your answer!
hell the ps3 version of crysis 2 has no physX, but the PC version really impressed me it has better physX support then what mafia 2 does!

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

@AC

You said;

"once we get games running 60FPS, 1080P, at least 8xMSAA then ill think about effects like ray tracing."

I'd love to see the compute budget for a game running at full 1080p60 with 8xMSAA and compare that against the compute budget for a game running at 1080p60 ray traced. I'm thinking we'd both conclude that the ray traced version would require more compute, I would be interested in knowing how much more, because if it's not a lot (comparatively) I'd rather game console makers and developers shoot for that goal and get within 90% of the full 1080p resolution using ray tracing, than have a game running at 1080p60 with 8xMSAA. At that resolution unless you're playing on a large screen or running the two side by side you won't be able to tell the difference in resolution, but I'd suspect that the ray traced game would still be visually superior.

Yes, the PS3 can run PhysX, but with the CellBE available, why waste the RSX on that? Whether a developer uses the PhysX library or not, really doesn't matter. It's a means to an end, and if the same goal is achieved using CellBE based libraries does it matter if PhysX was used or not? Why quote multi-platform games – especially a game (Crysis2) by one of the more heavily PC biased devs as examples of the PS3's supposed shortcomings. As with most multi-platform games with deficiencies on the PS3, the fault more often than not lies with the developer, not the hardware or dev kit. As you yourself said, this isn't about PCs, so why go there with a comparison?

I remember Ken promising games at 1080p. I also remember playing WipeoutHD and GT5P and GT5, which do run in a 1080p mode (although I will accept the criticism that the Wipeout games make resolution compromises to maintain framerate when necessary). The point is that it's possible to code games to run at 1080p60. In fact, depending on what you want to do with your game's graphics, any Ps3 game could run at 1080p60 – as could any 360 game. However if a developer decides that a) far more players have 720p TVs than 1080p, and some are still running sub-HD and b) there are more important effects and other functionality that take precedence over pure resolution and framerate, we'll see games running at 720p/1080i scaling to 1080p because the dev chooses to do that. In other words, the budget is there, but it depends on what the developer chooses to do with it. As a demonstration of what I am talking about, many PC games have sliders to adjust various aspects of their graphics so that PCs of various capability can still run the game acceptably. You can whack the resolution way up, and run into framerate issues if all the other bells and whistles are enabled, right? But if you knock back the detail, or the lighting effects, or some other parameter, the game can achieve better framerates at the higher resolution.

That's what I'm talking about regarding the ability of games to run at 1080p60. The hardware (both PS3 and 360) is capable of running games at 1080p60, depending on what other attributes the game's graphics have. So it comes back to what does the developer want to do, what effects, what textures, what lighting, etc. So, Ken could well have been right – but developers chose otherwise and settled at 720p since it is the predominant HD resolution of the day.

I still think that a PS4 may have sufficient computing power to handle fully ray traced games at resolutions between 720p and 1080p. If that is indeed the case, can anyone seriously say that they don't want to see fully ray traced games even if they have to compromise the resolution and run in the region of 900p (assuming of course that it's possible – which we don't yet know)? Would I like to see every game running at 1080p60 with 8xMSAA, yes, of course, but neither the PS3 hardware nor the 360, nor any PC available at the time they launched were capable of that either – at least not with any level of complexity in the graphics and textures used.

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Thank you gentlemen for all your responses, they were interesting and educative.

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"