Free Radical says PS3's power locked away, demands key

by Nick Doerr { May 29th 2007 at 1:30PM }

Dave Doak of Free Radical Design recently was quoted talking about the trials and difficulties of a new console, specifically the PS3. You may know Free Radical Design from their latest work on the impressive-looking FPS title Haze. Doak said the experience with programming for the PS3 is the same as with any new console. It's challenging, sure, but it fades over time.

He said about the PS3: "Its strengths are obviously that is has a lot of processing power. Its weaknesses are that its processing power is locked away at the moment. But everyone's going to hit that wall across all platforms at first." As technology grows more complex, he sees the process of developing growing right along with it in complexity. With the onset of multiple cores, which will no doubt grow in number, it's harder to learn how to tap into the power of the system.

This, he's implying, is the problem many devs are running into with the PS3. Instead of pushing through the wall, they're giving up, saying it's too difficult. We say to them: don't give up! Keep trying and soon you'll learn the PS3 inside and out. Then we'll see some very impressive titles. Like White Knight Story. Whatever happened to that one?

Tags: Dave Doak, DaveDoak, Free Radical Design, FreeRadicalDesign, Haze, PlayStation 3, Playstation3, PS3, Sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ymmv @ May 29th 2007 2:38PM

"This, he's implying, is the problem many devs are running into with the PS3. Instead of pushing through the wall, they're giving up, saying it's too difficult. We say to them: don't give up! Keep trying and soon you'll learn the PS3 inside and out."

Is that a nice way of saying programmers are lazy? I read that a lot on PS3 boards from disgruntled 12-year olds who don't know jack about programming their VCR, never mind programming console games. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that programming games on systems like the PS3 and 360 is very different from creating games on past consoles.

Console programming has become a lot more difficult with multiple core machines like the 360 and especially the PS3. Multicore CPUs are still very new. All programmers know have known for the past 40 years were single core CPUs, all their tools, all their code, all their favorite tricks were geared for single core CPU's. With the PS3 which has 1 PowerPC CPU plus multiple SPEs they suddenly have to think paralel. Instead of having one CPU handling switching tasks at regular intervals, they now have multiple CPUs/SPEs doing things all at the same time.

Think of single core programming as a juggler who is expert at keeping three, four even five balls up in the air at the same time. Multicore programming is like having a group of jugglers who while juggling exchange balls with eachother to add to the difficulty. If everything works, they can get a lot more balls up in the air at the same time than one juggler on his own, but the higher difficulty level means that it will take most people a lot longer to learn the trick.

pete @ May 29th 2007 2:49PM

you want some cheese to go with that wine mr. ymmv.

Killer @ May 29th 2007 3:09PM

you know what? I am really wondering with the 7(?) processors that are 90nm each, that early ps3s might have a heating problem when all those processors are working at full blast, and I mean Full blast (6 to 7 years from now). With the 360's 3 processors at full blast its like a small oven, with 7 at full I don't know, It might make a room into a sauna. I just want to know, that's all. Anybody got the anwser? or is this more like only time will tell?

Anon @ May 29th 2007 3:28PM

Pete: That only works on people that are, you know, actually whining. His post didn't really contain all that much whining. It seems that you just made a failed attempt at trolling. Too bad. Keep working on it.

GRT @ May 29th 2007 3:49PM

Looking at it from the developers', or more accurately the publisher's side of things, why put forth the extra effort to 'unlock' the power of the PS3 when there's a much bigger 360 audience waiting for your games?

I really think that Sony's 1st and 2nd party games need to lead this charge and show the world what can be done. Maybe sell some systems so there's enough of an install base that makes it worth the extra effort for other publishers.

Heck, right now they're probably figuring "As long as it looks good on the Wii we'll make plenty of money."

Popfrogs @ May 29th 2007 4:00PM

@GRT: How good can games with last-gen graphics maxed out at 480p look? Not very. Please don't even bring the Wii into these conversations.

Bashing aside, yeah the architecture is different and it's hard to code for. That's why middleware developers have to step up along with game devs. If you get one company selling its multiplayer code, one selling SPU physics code, etc. then it's just up to the game devs to decide how to implement the pieces. The problem currently is that, even though there are middleware developers with good stuff on tap, there's still a steep learning curve.

Ultimately Sony will get enough experience from first-party devs that they will roll that experience into each successive SDK that gets released to third parties. That, along with the ever-shrinking footprint of the (admittedly bloated and greedy) PS3 OS, will wind up helping devs.

Overgauss @ May 29th 2007 4:36PM

Sony needs to release hella cheap games that are basically tech demo's that stack with each other or are episodic in nature. This way consumers can get sucked in by the uber hotness and developers can see what was previously done and improve on it.

If it is cheap enough people will buy it to justify their PS3/HDTV purchase and convert friends.

I would easily pay 3 bucks for a 10 hour game. Factor enough replay-ability via stat building and such and the min-maxer is sold.

Usable stats that crosslink genres/game types would help to build user libraries without all the nasty rapery feelings

Bangbang... @ May 29th 2007 4:57PM

I think the reason developers are giving up on the ps3 isn't because it's hard to get the very best results from the machine, but because its harder and more time consuming to get the same results you have already got on the 360 and PC on the PS3.

Keep in mind the basis of my opinion isn't from personal expirence or even an article I read. Im only going on the current trend of multiplatform games releasing on the ps3 months after they release on the 360.
btw is Rainbow Six Vegas still coming to the ps3?

thebigfatj @ May 29th 2007 4:58PM

With modern CPUs, not all power is equal.

As people have noted here, the Cell has 7 usable SPUs. These aren't general purpose threads, they're very specific and can quickly generate single precision floating point operations. Floating point performance is important for gaming, but also is general purpose CPU performance.

The Cell, sadly, has only 1/3rd as much general purpose performance available as the xbox 360 does. (2 threads for PPC970 cores as opposed to 6). While most 360 games won't have high utilization of all six threads, for games that routinely use more than two threads developers will have to simplify things for the PS3 version. For example, Assassin's Creed developers are simplifying the Artificial Intelligence on the PS3 version since it doesn't have as much extra CPU power as the 360 for computing AI.

You've seen a lot of cross platform games that run and look better on the 360: Call of Duty 3, STALKER, Spiderman 3, etc, but what you haven't seen much of is games on both platforms that look better on the PS3. I think the Oblivion devs went th extra mile and ended up improving their game for both platforms.

PS3 fans can't rely on more powerful hardware to generate a better gaming experience. They must focus on the games -- in all but a few cases the 360 has a leg up on the PS3 for performance.

Gamble20 @ May 29th 2007 6:02PM

All of this should be obvious...

the PS2 has been around for like 8 years and we have just now reached the "end" of its power. The PS3 will be AT LEAST 2 or 3 years before the games clearly utilize the processor(s).

Which might be the problem with the PS3's marketing. They market its possible graphical power (which technically speaking is less than 360, for graphics specifically), and consumers see the video and are not impressed for the most part so they dont understand why they should pay $600 for it.

They need to market the system as a GAMING machine, market the Blu-Ray a lot more (although they have marketed it alot already) and dont bother so much with "graphical power" until they can bakc it up.

Just IMO of course

Xiru @ May 30th 2007 12:00AM

Wow, a lot of excellent intelligent posts here. Good job guys. You are all basically hitting the nail on the head. Why unlock the power of the PS3 if you can make very good looking and playing games on the 360. As of right now, there is little reason. Sony has to lead the front. Give us something jaw dropping that absolutley cannot be done on the 360. Something that makes it worth unlocking this "power". I love my PS3 and prefer it in every aspect over the other systems. But most people don't feel the same. It really is up to Sony to push the power of this machine.

pete @ May 29th 2007 5:23PM

me... troll? ill wear that crown ;)

listen, like #1 said

"All programmers know have known for the past 40 years were single core CPUs, all their tools, all their code, all their favorite tricks were geared for single core CPU's."

thats the mentality thats keeping games from being all they can be, this applys to some not all devs. lazy devs that dont want to learn the new hardware. and i do call them lazy because how many times do they got to figure out the ps3. if they spend the time and resources to figure out the ps3, then they are past that hurdle entirely and can create games that use the ps3 to max from then on.

thebigfatj @ May 29th 2007 5:54PM

@11

"They market its possible graphical power (which technically speaking is less than 360, for graphics specifically)"

How did you measure that? By most measures, the Xbox 360 is more powerful for rendering graphics. It has more fill rate, a more flexible memory architecture, and extra 10MB frame buffer, and significantly less memory is given to the OS as overhead.

In terms of general purpose CPU power, the Xbox 360 has three SMT 3.2ghz PPC970 cores to the PS3's one SMT 3.2ghz PPC970 core. While the Cell can pump a lot of floating point operations per second for trivially parallelizable floating point intensive programs, such as folding, it will not have as much power for AI -- which is typically a FSA or involves a search of some sort -- for example. Many, many gaming functions require very generalized CPU power that cannot benefit from the presence of the SPEs.

People simply assume, "The PS3 is newer, the PS3 is much more expensive, therefore the PS3 is more powerful." They don't bother to look at the details -- the fill rate comparisons, the usable amount of memory, and computational numbers other than simple (and unattainable) theoretical numbers.

Games haven't shown the PS3 to be more powerful so many people have changed their assumption. However, there are still some who think that the PS3 will somehow have huge benefits from developer experience in the future and the Xbox 360 will not have similar benefits and that this is one of the virtues of developing on an esoteric platform.

Compare first generation Xbox 360 games to first generation PS3 games. The 360 games look better. Compare ports that were pushed from the PC to the 360 and have also been pushed to the PS3. If the PS3 is so much more powerful, how come these games always run more slowly and look worse than the 360 counter-parts?

Many of the development challenges that exist on the PS3 also exist on the 360 but to a lesser extent. Others, such as squeezing the most possible out of the SPEs, nearly require planning a game around the platform.

As time goes on and developers use more of the 360's available threads, it will become more difficult to port those games back to the PS3 since the PS3 only has 1/3rd as many general purpose threads available. Porting from the PS3 to the Xbox 360 would be much, much easier. You could make the PS3 the original target platform, develop for that, then you could improve various aspects of the game (such as the AI) with all of the extra general purpose CPU power you have on the 360 version.

Naaiif @ May 29th 2007 6:12PM

Thebigfatj quit spewing bullshit from your mouth, it's been proven countless times the ps3 is more powerful that the 360.

I'll put it like this for you...

Cell shits on Xenon

Xenos shits on RSX

Cell + RSX shits on Xenon + Xenos

Cell + RSX + Blu-ray shits on Xenon + Xenos + DVD

Cell + RSX + Blu-ray + HDD shits on Xenon + Xenos + DVD + absolutely nothing

No add-on hard drives don't count as they can't be accounted for during development as it wasn't compulsory in the cheapest SKU.

mccomber @ May 29th 2007 6:21PM

"For example, Assassin's Creed developers are simplifying the Artificial Intelligence on the PS3 version since it doesn't have as much extra CPU power as the 360 for computing AI."
Ummm... wrong, again. How many times will this come up.
This was said once by Jade Raymond, and then corrected by Ubi. It's running the same code on both systems, there will be no difference. "While the method for distributing AI load is different on each platform, the AI code itself is the same. Players will experience the exact same crowd results on PS3 and Xbox360."

"You've seen a lot of cross platform games that run and look better on the 360: Call of Duty 3, STALKER...."

STALKER? I thought that was PC only...

ymmv @ May 29th 2007 6:35PM

Another reason why PS3 to Xbox ports may be easier than the reverse is memory management. The PS3 is a lot less flexible because of the even split between CPU and GPU ram on one side and vertex and pixel shaders on the other side. PS3 programmers have to be very careful that the program code fits in about 200 MB and all the textures fit in the available GPU ram, otherwise they get into trouble. Xbox programmers don't have those worries, because CPU/GPU RAM is unified. If you don't have that much code, there's more RAM for textures.

This usually means that you can have Xbox 360 games that use 300-400MB of in game textures if the main program is very small. Such games are very difficult to port to the PS3 because the textures just don't fit. Unless you write all kinds of code to get around that problem, but that will slow down the game.

The same goes for Xbox 360 games that have mostly pixel shader operations or mostly vertex shader operations. The Xenon has unified shaders so its okay to have 48 pixel shader operations going on at the same time. That will pose a problem for the PS3 too.

Another problem is the size of the PS3 OS that takes up 50MB more than the 360 OS which means there's less room for game code and textures.

All this means that games conceived for the PS3 are a lot easier to port to the Xbox 360 than vice versa.

Killer @ May 29th 2007 6:36PM

@mccomber

I'm 100% sure he meant F.E.A.R. Instead of STALKER.

Tom @ May 29th 2007 6:42PM

@thebigfatj

Shame on you for using logic and facts to make your point! Didn't you realize the only way to argue your point is by saying the word "shit" every other sentence and making absolutely no sense whatsoever?

The PS3 might or might not be as powerful as the Xbox360; I don't know, but I'm more inclined to listen to someone who goes into detail instead of just making crude generalizations. Anyways, this STILL doesn't make me any less likely to buy a PS3 when they become less expensive, but it's not because of the numbers and the specs. It's about the games. When games like Uncharted and Shadow of the Collossus 2 come out, then I'll start to take notice.

Killer @ May 29th 2007 6:47PM

@Naaiif

I'm so glad you gave us very good, (proven with sources) data. How much percent better is "shits on"? Till you show me actual relavent data that isn't biase to you trying to product your investment that in your words "shits on" everything. The ps3 has yet to show the power that sony says it has. So try not to protect your product/balls of manlyhood, with data that has no point.

(Ps. Blu-ray only shits on itself, because its a forced format.) :p

lenny0487 @ May 29th 2007 6:52PM

^^^^^^
OWNED

Noshino @ May 29th 2007 7:09PM

http://playstation.joystiq.com/2007/05/23/linux-test-shows-ps3-beat-by-power-mac-g5/

sigh, I think the comments said on that article are more than enough...

mccomber @ May 29th 2007 7:16PM

@Killer, probably correct there. Both titles with C.A.P.I.T.A.L. LETTERS.
Still have to stand by the Assassin's Creed point though, since I keep hearing the "will have better AI..." argument when it simply isn't true. Actually, I stand by my (and other's) statements made about this same general topic that it's less about hardware limitations and more about software limitations.
Hopefully this fall with the release of some of the big PS3 only titles we'll actually start to see what it can do. I have no doubt that with time we'll be amazed... but that holds true for both consoles. I hate to think the 360 has already had it's perfect title in Gears.

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 7:19PM

Morons:

The proof is in the pudding. The only thing "thebigfatj" is posting is FUD. THat's been going on a lot lately here in PS3 fanboy and a few other websites.

The truth is, as much jargon as you spew, saying how much better Xbox 360 is for AI, that was a rumor born out of Assassin's creed, and proven wrong when asked Ubisoft. Furthermore, Heavenly Sword has not dozens, not hundreds, but thousands of enemy AI agents running at the same time, real-time. Those tools were pioneered at Ninja Theory, and are now part of EDGE. How do they do it? Well, it seems that SPUs, contrary to POPULAR BELIEF (or what Xbots would like to believe), can actually manage AI code, and can communicate between each other.

Until proven otherwise (that 360 is indeed a lot better for AI), get bent. Hell, Scott Henson from Microsoft UK even admitted that PS3 might eventually beat them at the graphics punch (among other things), so shut the fuck up, troll.

And by the way, regardless of how many times Naaiif said the word "shit", it's pretty much known that Cell > Xenon, every developer knows and says that. Nearly every developer has praised Blu-ray for its capacity, for its cost saving potential for saving costs on multiple disc games, for saving processing time of compressed games, and for making games like GTA IV (well, the ones that aren't multiplatform, those of the same genre) possible; its only downside is loading times, but you can cut them by either repeating information, OR, as Naaiif said, HDD > nothing.

The only part where Xbox 360 beats PS3 is flexibility, but you don't need a flexible architecture unless you're a lazy developer OR a PC programmer. That's why DX10 was developed for PC. Consoles don't need to be that flexible since their hardware is static for 5 or more years (4 in the case of microsoft), so you can pretty much develop for the strengths of each console. So yes, Xbox 360 has a more flexible GPU and RAM, but that will not matter much if you develop towards the RSX strengths, and know how to optimize RAM. There are things that the RSX can do that Xenos can't (and viceversa of course); the point is, it's not absolutely true to say Xenos > RSX, unlike the case of Cell > Xenon.

As you can see, nearly everything the big fat joker said is really a joke.

So if a 360 fanboy comes and repeats jargon he doesn't even understand (especially false claims), why do you even give him any credibility? I'm betting Killer is another troll, but who knows, he might just be a little gullible. After all, someone that doesn't know jack shit about development can believe anyone that sounds mildly acknowledged, even if they're wrong.

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 7:37PM

Why Blu-ray is needed:

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25597117&page=0

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 7:40PM

There are even more quotes, like exact quotes from Kojima (MGS4), from Tetsuya Nomura (FFXIII), Ubisoft and SEGA praised the PS3 as being the most sophisticated equipment they've ever worked with, and EA said the same and added that Blu-ray is a great addition to games (they even belong to the Blu-ray association).

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 7:44PM

And by the way, the next Winning Eleven (on PS3) will be 18 Gigabytes big. Devil May Cry 4 will take advantage of Blu-ray (I don't know what they're gonna do with the 360 version). And of course, First and Second Party will utilize Blu-ray. So yes, Blu-ray > DVD.

And by the way, Blu-ray is not just for content, but also for optimizing processor use (because compressed info has to be decompressed by the processor, which takes processing time, which could make the game take a hit in the graphics department), and of course, it reduces costs for developers (of testing multiple disc games), and leaves space for video cut-scenes (sometimes needed), 7.1 audio, more languages, single global SKUs, and again, of course, more content.

And all this is relevant to why the power of PS3 is "locked away".

Tom @ May 29th 2007 7:56PM

@bootsielon

Facts and reality back up what thebigfatj said regarding CPU capabilities and Memory architecture. What Naaiif was just pure bias with no information provided. THAT is the difference. THAT is why I sided with thebigfatj.

Oh, but thanks for calling me a moron, that really helps me understand the differences between PS3 and Xbox360. None of this matters until a game comes out that actually proves the superior capability of the PS3 by looking BETTER than Gears of War. I kinda think Uncharted will do that. Specifications can be spun to support anyone's opinion, but for now all the games on the PS3 look worse: that cannot be denied.

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 7:45PM

More on why the relative statement "Xenon > RSX" matters way less than you could think off:

http://ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=71703

Killer @ May 29th 2007 8:03PM

@Bootsielon

I'm not a troll. Personally I hate fanboy wars, its just that I hate how some people choose to do an argument thats all. By the way, I wasn't even talking about development. So I don't know where you got me saying something about it. Gullible? Hardly. The truth is (and don't be in denial about this) The ps3 has yet to show it's power. I'm sure that someday it will. Right now, it hasn't so it's perfectly fine that I can state that right now the ps3 isn't using a higher power of operating as the 360 is. I'm sure that will change just not right now. Also I would like to point out I wasn't at all siding with anyone. I was just gladly went after Naaiif because he clearing is someone that needs a larger vocabulary.

(Ps. Thanks for clearing up that "shits on" meant greater than. Seriously, thank you. If Naaiif had used greater than then it would have made his post more relavent.)

The only problem I see with Blu-ray is that (yes it has more storage), but it's so damn slow at 2X. If the game isn't partly saved on the the harddrive the load times are longer then normal dvds. I personally want less load times. It's next-gen for christ sakes! If the speed was faster then I would be all for it, but right now I'll keep with speed over space.

Breeze @ May 29th 2007 8:09PM

@ymmv

I thought you knew what you were talking about, but it's obvious you don't. The RSX can leverage as much system memory as it needs in addition to its 256MB of VRAM. To not be aware of this simple and obvious fact is embarrassing. As for the Xenos and it's unified shaders, you do realize that the one does not usually perform 48 pixel shader operations or 48 vertex shader operations at the same time, right? It's always distributed in a combination of pixel and vertex shading operations. This is why the performance of the Xenos is not much better than the dedicated pixel and vertex shaders of the RSX.

Please research what you're talking about next time because it's evident you didn't.

Killer @ May 29th 2007 8:26PM

LOL @ the first post on the gamespot forums.

Team Ninja, Itagaki wrote:

"The screen resolution for Xbox 360 games will be in high definition, so the pre-rendered movies are going to be pretty large."

Pre-rendered movies? Gears uses the engine, (which I find better because it looks like my charater.) Mass effect, Too Human, Halo 3, pretty much all the later 360 games are using non-pre-rendered movies. I find that awesome becuase the engine can do it. Why you pre-rendered crap that makes you wish "Man, I wish my game really did look like that"? I love the idea of engine movies. Pre-rendered in my opinion is last-gen. If this Next-gen is as powerful as they say it is, then do everything using the engine and stop with the pre-rendering crap. Stop CGing it.

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 8:27PM

Tom, I didn't specifically pointed at you, and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously (my "insult").

Killer, I know the PS3 has yet to show its power. That's why I said the proof is in the pudding. But if people wanna get technical, then that's ok, because there are many things that can be talked about (especially FUD).

Will the PS3 games ever look better than 360 games? Who knows, but LAIR, Heavenly Sword and Uncharted come to mind. Is that even important? If the games aren't good, it's not. But if they are, then it's better to have some extras or stupid bullshit to brag about.

The thing is, you can fool anyone with jargon, if it's taken out of your ass (and without notice). Let's not let ourselves be fooled.

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 8:28PM

Oh, and I'm sorry for saying "morons". I get pissed off so fast (and yes, I know it's ridiculous, for such a silly argument on the net, so save it).

Breeze @ May 29th 2007 8:29PM

@thebigfatj

The sickening part is that you actually believe the ignorant drivel you spewed out. In reality, you know nothing about multi-core programming or development in general. It really sickens me to constantly see these retards regurgitate the A.I issue. It's proof that they don't understand how to program because if they did they would be able to logically deduce why a statement comparing the A.I processing capabilities of the PS3 is not only ludicrous, but disgusting.

It's amazing how people set themselves up to look so stupid because they're too lazy to do some simple research.

bootsielon @ May 29th 2007 8:34PM

Killer:

"The Darkness" will make good use of video, not simply "cut-scenes" but in-game screens will display video.

The point about cut-scenes is not only narrative, but also doing things that can't be done solely with the in-game engine.

Besides, you shouldn't limit developers as in "You can do everything; except cut-scenes of course. THAT you can't do". Blue Dragon uses that a lot, and while it's a multiple disc game (because it's linear), it's kind of proof that you can't do everything without CG (or rather, there is market for that).

Developers of GTA4 were struggling to fit that game on 360, and it's well known it is not a linear game. I doubt it was because of "cut-scenes", I don't even remeber video on GTA3, and I doubt 4 will have (unless they add TV shows, which would be a very nice addition). Anyhow, it's not simply about having 50 gigabyte or 25 gigabyte games only; it's about having more than 9 gigabytes on a single disc.

As for loading times, they are a non-issue, since there's the HDD to rely on. Developers should not be lazy like they were with motorstorm.

Breeze @ May 29th 2007 8:36PM

@Killer

You do realize that the data transfer rate of the 2 x Blu-ray drive is still greater than that $5 DVD drive in your Xbox, right?

Killer @ May 29th 2007 8:40PM

"Oh, and I'm sorry for saying "morons". I get pissed off so fast (and yes, I know it's ridiculous, for such a silly argument on the net, so save it)."

It's not ridiculous. I do the same thing actually. It's just I get to "into" the debate. lol

tahiri @ May 29th 2007 9:47PM

'How did you measure that? By most measures, the Xbox 360 is more powerful for rendering graphics. It has more fill rate, a more flexible memory architecture, and extra 10MB frame buffer, and significantly less memory is given to the OS as overhead."

PS3 has a higher fillrate, not 360. And 4 times the polygon count. PS3 has dedicated video memory, 360 has divided bandwidth, like shared memory on a laptop. PS3 doesnt need the 10 mb framebuffer cause its video memory isnt shared. And PS3s OS only uses 20 mbs more memory

'The PS3 is a lot less flexible because of the even split between CPU and GPU ram on one side and vertex and pixel shaders on the other side.'

less flexible yes, more powerful yes. Dedicated ram is better than shared, and ps3 has 256 mbs dedicated video ram, 256 SHARED system ram. and same for 360s unified shaders, more of pixel shading means less vertex, and vice versa.

' PS3 programmers have to be very careful that the program code fits in about 200 MB and all the textures fit in the available GPU ram'

ps3s system ram is shared with the gpu.

'Another problem is the size of the PS3 OS that takes up 50MB more than the 360 OS '

ps3s os takes up 54 mb in total, 360s takes 32.
ppl claim it also takes 32 mb of vram but that was an estimate based on dual 1080p framebuffers which ps3 doesnt use. and 360 needs space reserved for its as well since 10mb isnt even large enough for 720p

tahiri @ May 29th 2007 9:56PM

'The truth is (and don't be in denial about this) The ps3 has yet to show it's power'

denied, resistances physics arre amazing

'The only problem I see with Blu-ray is that (yes it has more storage), but it's so damn slow at 2X.'

its actually faster on average than 360s dvd. 360 is only faster for the outer 15% on single layered discs only, which no 360 games are printed on. unlike dvd, bluray doesnt slow down the closer you get to the center of the disc, or on double layered discs

'Pre-rendered movies? Gears uses the engine'

gears had fmv, you can tell by looking at the artifacting in the smoke from the explosion in the ending movie

Tom @ May 29th 2007 11:17PM

"gears had fmv, you can tell by looking at the artifacting in the smoke from the explosion in the ending movie"~tahiri

You're wrong. That is all. You're just plain wrong. Stop lying. Now.

Tahiri @ May 30th 2007 4:31AM

"You're wrong. That is all. You're just plain wrong. Stop lying. Now"

That wasn't a lie. Gears uses FMV, beat the game, watch the ending FMV, look at the smoke. Real time graphics don't have MPEG artifacting.

FMV does. So does the smoke in the explosion.

Gears uses FMV, get over it fanboy

Burnt Meatloaf @ May 30th 2007 6:18AM

The tools are where the real power lies. Trying to hard-code anything yourself is a pain and a waste of time, no matter what architecture you use -- including the Wii.

Unfortunately, tool developers also reacted the same way as game developers when the PS3 price was announced.

Killer @ May 30th 2007 6:23AM

@Tahiri

Wow, man. I do believe what Tom said was sarcasm. Smooth move.

jsn @ May 30th 2007 9:56AM

This is BS and it shows again, just how out of touch with the community Sony was when building this console. Your development tools should do the unlocking! You shouldn't have to code directly to the hardware and figure it out yourself. That mentality was fine when it was what everyone expected, but with all the cross-over PC/console development, that attitude changed. PC developers avoided consoles because the tools sucked. That is until the Xbox came along and gave console devs great tools. Now many developers expect their tools to do what they need and to do it fast and efficiently. Sony dropped the ball big on that one.