Hirai says: six years until PS3 games use full system potential
by Nick Doerr 
{ Sep 3rd 2007 at 5:00PM }
It seems like Kaz Hirai is making his interview rounds today, as this next bit comes from the latest issue of the Official PlayStation Magazine (OPM if you're acronymically inclined). It's been said before that the PS3 isn't going to let developers squeeze all of the power from it for a while, but Hirai finally put a fairly specific (we mean generally vague) date on this optimization of the PS3's potential. "The power that we've packed into PS3 will really manifest itself in software titles that come up four, five or six years down the line."That's a long time! But looking at the most recent PS2 releases, we can't say Hirai is really straying far from what history tells us. Games now look oodles and boodles better than when the PS2 launched, so the same should be true for the PS3.
In fact, keeping the parallel with the PS2 alive, Hirai mentioned the difficulty developers are having coding for the PS3: "If you look back at the commentary we received when we launched PS2, there was a lot of talk to the effect that 'It's very difficult to program for' and 'It's easier on a Dreamcast'. It's happened before." He goes on to say that if people said it was easy to program the PS3, he'd be worried. That wouldn't be pushing the envelope for technological development, he explains. What do you guys think? Is Sony showing a bit of their trademark arrogance, or are they totally right in saying these things, because as Hirai said, it has all happened before?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kspraydad @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:04PM
Kaz is chanelling Kenny!
Stephen @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:31PM
He is absolutly spot on the mark.
Whilst the PS3 may be slightly behind the 360 today, the 360 is east to develop for,, and does not contain anything radical. It's therefore reaching the limit of what it can do.
The PS3 is just scratching the surface.
MrFlibble @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:13PM
Problem is Kaz, people want kick-a55 games now not 6 years down the line (MGS excepted) - how is making the power of the PS3 hard to get at, a good thing for customers?
dan @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:32PM
thats bullshit. killzone 2 will run at 30 fps cuz it cant run at 60, 2 gig levels. I really think they know how to use it already. the ps3 was made for developers. if its not gonna be killzone, then delepopers will never reach the full system potential. example: rockband will be made for ps2. Look at all the ps2 ratchet and clank games.... and Where does 6 years come from?????
Phil @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:32PM
Graphics aren't everything... *points at Nintendo*
Making it hard to get gives developers something to build on for a sequel?
12 years and I'm still looking for a game which can stop me from playing Transport Tycoon for at least 2 hours a week.
Andy @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:34PM
That is one of the advantages Playstation has is the future. All their platforms they have made were built to last long and keep getting better game experiences.
I like what I see now with the PS3 and I can't wait for the future.
Urbanstorm @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:38PM
I've been saying this for a long time.NOTING and I mean NOTING that is going on with the PS3 is different from what happen to the PS2. Lets me explain
Both the PS2 and the PS3 were the highest price console on the market!!!
Both the PS2 and the PS3 are hard to code for!!!
Both got bad press at launch for playing movies!!!!
Both the PS2 and PS3 seem inferior to there rivals!!!
Both the PS2 and PS3 didnt start seeing there blockbuster games until 2 years after launch.
Both the PS2 and PS3 lead the way for new movie formats even though people "didnt care"..
History repeats itself for this company which is why i dont understand why people act all shocked.
Fact is we havent seen the full power of the hardware yet and we can expectthis console to at least have a 7 year cycle.......PLEASE tell me a company that can say that other than SCE
Andy @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:39PM
@dan
Look at the difference between these games.
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014660/img_1258728.html
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/829/829741/img_3800018.html
Even look at the first games on Xbox 360 and Gears of War. Are you stupid or just ignorant?
russ @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:51PM
6 years, eh?
Why, is that when a game will come to the EU network?
LOLZOIDS!!!1!!1"22!!!
Tom @ Sep 4th 2007 3:46AM
I think it's great news! I sold my 360 to get a PS3 because I knew that it had better hardware and also a longer life. If the upcoming games like Killzone and Heavenly Sword are only just scratching the surface then I can't wait for the future!
railven @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:07PM
He said full potential.
I'd agree closer to the four/five year mark for developers to truly understand a dev kit. As examples given, look at the PS history, then the PS2 history.
Microsoft's box run off a modified DirectX9 API. This has been PC industry standard for almost a decade. The API is reaching its end as DX10 and newer hardware are coming along.
And polygon count has been stated to not be the feature for PC gaming (consoles too I'd agree) it will focus more on bitmapping and and texture shading.
With the developers learning more for the PS3 we can expact some great games in mid-08 into early 09. But I'll wager in 2010 MS will probably drop a new console featuring DX10 and PS3 hardware will move on to OpenGL2.5 or maybe even OpenGL3 since the nVidia GPU used supports it.
Eitherway, in 2010 we'll look back at the launch titles and say "damn those games are ugly."
Dehshizknight @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:34PM
He is not being arrogant. Everything he said is true. Just wait...the PS3 will dominate.
Strike Man @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:10PM
Andy, while I agree with the idea of your statement (that the average game will typically look better overall during a console's lifespans), the examples you gave were really quite poor.
One is a gameplay screenshot of an early PS2 game recorded with an analog cable by IGN. The second is an in-engine shoot of a non-gameplay angle (probably a replay) at an ungodly resolution the PS2 (or PS3) isn't even capable of rendering, 3200x2400. Yes, NHL 07 looks a lot better than NHL 2001, but those were poor examples.
Eric @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:10PM
I wouldn't say it's the "trademark arrogance"...more like trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. The PS3 is more difficult to program for which = higher development costs for a lower return (due to a smaller install base), yet the install base needs new killer games to grow...brand will only carry you so far. The next year could be a make or break year for PS3. The 360's install base will only grow and the return equation will be even more difficult for developers to justify sinking the extra resources into PS3. I don't think it'll take 6 years to get the most out of the PS3. I DO think it'll take more time for powerful, easy-to-use developer tools which makes developing for the PS3 a more economically feasible proposition. In 4 years it will SEEM like developers are getting more out of the PS3, but it'll be more due to better developer tools than anything else.
railven @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:12PM
Another example:
Look at games such as Doom3, Gears of War and Bioshock. Those games look unbelievable and they run perfectly fine on dated hardware (such as a Radeon 9800+) but for the best performance you'd want something with Smooth Shader 2.0+
The newer video cards from nVidia and ATI/AMD have been stated to to not have a higher polygon versus prior generations but they focus on higher clock speeds to increase the fill rate. That with newer more efficiant pixel shaders (Smooth Shader 4.0 in DX10) you get graphics that look amazing running on similar hardware of the last two generations (in terms of polygon count.)
If you can look at Bioshock and Lost Planet:
on the 360 (reduced DX9 API), then compare it to a PC running a decent DX9 hardware, then finally on a PC running decent DX10 hardware.
Same polygon count, but a huge difference in quality/graphical detail.
x silence x @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:23PM
I'm a little worried with this comment. If the PS3 reaches it's full potential in 6 years that means that this system will be around for 10 years? I know Sony made this statement awhile back (10 year life) but do you think that the PS3 will still be the best technology in 6 years from now? I'm sure Nintendo will have a more powerful system by then. Looks like I might as well put the PS3 away for half a decade and pull it out in the year 2013. Does that sound right to you guys? Good games for the PS3 in the year 2013? That's a long ways away...
Andy @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:23PM
@ Strike Man
True they are bad examples but they still make my point. It doesn't matter if the dev tools got better, they had more time or they figured out the hardware, the point is they looked beter.
canuch @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:39PM
It may take a long time for the Cell to be fully utilized, but the RSX offers nothing dramatically new (like the 360's Unified Shader Model), so I wouldn't expect games to improve all that much graphically. I would prefer to see graphics toned down slightly, and have 60fps personally.
Plaguespitter12 @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:57PM
Kaz is saying that we would have more technolgy to make great games utilizing the potential of the console. I am with Kaz every step of the way.
insane257 @ Sep 3rd 2007 6:59PM
So i paid £425 at launch and he's telling me im not gonna get the most out of my console for 6 years? Brilliant. In 6 years the PS3 will be sold for £100 ($200) with a 500gb HD, emotion engine and blu ray drive knowing my luck.
they say only fools rush in....what have i done??
And to make matters worse , i have previously said my logic about an FF7 remake on the PS3 coming out in 2017, meaning my PS3 is going to be broken by the time FF7's remake arrives.
Look at it this way. Im 17 now. In six years ill be 23. I will probably have my own house/flat, own car, MAYBE even a kid. Does Sony really think i'll be able to play games in that situation?
I love Sony to death but this comment is annoying.
railven @ Sep 3rd 2007 7:06PM
First of all did you guys even read the article? Or does half the people hear post based on the name of the threat?
He said "four, five, or six" not specifically Six.
I doubt it will take six years. Maybe four to five. And why is everyone counting from now? In the article it isn't specified from day of launch.
I'm going to assume he meant since the dev kits rolled out which was sometime in late 05/early 06. So add four years to those numbers and you get my estimate: late 09 to early 10.
Jeez people have some stupid logic. They don't even base their comments on anything.
It be easier if you guys just said "six years? OMG I'll be dead by then."
gibson335 @ Sep 3rd 2007 7:26PM
@Insane-
Yes, maybe Kaz is right-perhaps it will take six years for the full potential of the PS3 to be tapped. That should excite, not depress you. Look at today's visuals, and consider (if you can) what the visuals of 2013 might look like in order to make today's PS3 visuals seems crude? Is that not mind-blowing? Furthermore, as developers learn new techniques and put them into play, you are going to be consistently and increasingly amazed at the quality of your PS3 experience with each new advance. True, we do not know what 2013 will look like, but it will be soooo much fun getting there.
Also, regarding being too old to game...if you have the bug today, I can assure you, it is not unlikely that you may have it in the future, still.
I've been gaming since I was 10, first on the old Atari 2600. I'm now 38, with three young kids, a loving wife, a mortgage, 3 cars, a dog...and a PS3. True, I have more responsibilities, but I enjoy my downtime all the more, and one of my recreational activities is gaming...its been true all these years for me, perhaps it will be true for you too.
Peace,
Gib
ruibing @ Sep 3rd 2007 7:56PM
I think this article is right about the future of the PS3. The PS3's cell processor is completely different from the normal x86 architecture, so most programmers must use the developer kit Sony provides for now. Those that don't need to spend more time because its their first time doing it (take Killzone 2, MGS4, and FFXIII). But as the game development industry get better at it and the developer kit improves, it will really improve more and more.
I look forward to seeing what my PS3 will be capable of a few years down the road.
Popfrogs @ Sep 3rd 2007 7:42PM
I bet 2012 will be cool, but I'm really looking forward to 2013, when firmware 9.3 gets released, giving us in-game XMB access and custom soundtracks.
Todd @ Sep 3rd 2007 8:14PM
I just hope developers learn how to stop making the games look so shiny. One of the most annoying things on XBox and Ps3 is that everything in the games are shiny. Even things that aren't supposed to shine, like grass. It's annoying.
railven @ Sep 3rd 2007 8:34PM
@Todd
Welcome to the era of HDR lighting. I love HDR when used properly (I feel R:FOM did it right) but other games just go over board.
The HDR in Haze urks the shit outta me. The glare is too high and the intensity of light changes. If they are trying to emulate the way light affects the retna I'll give them credit for trying but if they are not the game is just way to bright in places that can't reflect light as much as they do in Haze, ala concrete.
DownwardMonkey @ Sep 3rd 2007 8:48PM
@ gibson335
I'm 30, I know how you feel. It feels like markets have grown with us as our generation aged. I still read the comics I read as a kid and I still play games. I'm a very different man in my 30s than my dad was in his, times change.
mccomber @ Sep 3rd 2007 9:46PM
Those of you complaining; he's not saying we won't have great games in the next few years, just that we won't see everything the ps3 can do for quite a while. Most games are built on the shoulders of what has come before; the ps3 is a whole different beast, and we're just seeing what is the start of games on it.
Andy's post is absolutely spot-on for what Kaz talking about. At the time the first NHL game looked great, but compared to what eventually became possible as the hardware was mastered... not even close.
freddeh @ Sep 3rd 2007 10:25PM
You can have your PS3 in six years, not like we'll be on the next generation or anything....
ruibing @ Sep 3rd 2007 11:17PM
I don't get how so many people are flaming graphics of games that aren't out and doesn't even has a playable demo. Seriously, if you are gonna say bad things of PS3's hardware abilities, try saying Heavenly Sword or Lair (bad game play maybe, but not graphics) looks bad. I will love to see the future of this console and see just how far game developers can take it. And when I say game developers, I mean committed ones not out to score a quick buck.
L @ Sep 3rd 2007 10:43PM
yey its a shame in many ways >.< 6 years people is a long long time!!!!! There for sure will be a new xbox which will be 4-? times the power of the PS3
SOrry i just don,t see the point in it at all =(
Grindstone @ Sep 3rd 2007 10:55PM
I applaud those of you who have the patience of a rock. In 6 years, I will have 2 more kids, a bigger house, probably a boat, among other things. If you think I will wait that long for what Kaz if offering, you are crazy. Pay $600 for results +5 years later, or buy a 360 for instant gratification (or a Wii, for that matter).
Give me a life raft, I'm jumping ship.
ruibing @ Sep 3rd 2007 11:19PM
@33 - You are really missing his point. He's not saying good games won't come out till 6 years later. He's saying something like, "If you think the games coming out now are amazing, wait until six years later." Does anyone even really read anymore?
James @ Sep 3rd 2007 11:21PM
All of you freaking idiots read post #23 by railven. All of you are misinterpreting the article but Railven has it dead on. Read his post and maybe you'll understand what Kaz REALLY means in this article... jeeze...
Justin @ Sep 4th 2007 12:00AM
PS3 Version 1.92...
but whats new in it?
wolfster @ Sep 4th 2007 12:09AM
Haha, while you guys are sitting around with your thumbs stuck up your crack for the next few years, others will be playing sweet games for the other system.... and by then...they'll have new gaming systems for even better games.
PS3 will just be a bed time story....
Rocket @ Sep 4th 2007 1:12AM
Ummmmm.... Does anyone realize that the oritinal "XBOX" was easy to program??? Does anyone realize that the first wave of games for it looks light years ahead of what the Playstation 2 has to offer??? The fact is that Sony had a better rep with the public and had a lot of power over developers. The PS3 is a year newer than the 360 therefore, it should make the 360 look like a dated system. The 360 is easy to program and looks better. As time goes bye games definatly will look better and the PS3 will continue to be difficult to develope on.
ruibing @ Sep 4th 2007 1:40AM
@38 - You consider playing GT5 Prologue, Ratchet & Clank, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, LittleBigPlanet (?) and Haze as just sitting around with nothing to do? Notice these are only the PS3 exclusives to come before Christmas, I didn't even mention the cross-platforms (Assassin's Creed, Stranglehold, Call of Duty 4, etc) and the ones to come Spring (FFXIII, MGS4, GT5) when the 360's shelves will be relatively empty. As for the exclusives for 360, the only two true exclusives are Halo 3 and Mass Effect, as Bioshock is available on PC. I liked Halo 1, so I'm not gonna say they are better, but PS3 has a large range of offerings from FPS to driving, sword play to action for winter.
@39 - I will need an analogy for you to understand my point. Say we both got two cars, different brand, but you got yours a year (or more?) ahead of mine. The basics aren't so different, except mine is a one year newer model. Do you expect me to drive better than you when you have been driving your car for over a year longer than me? Now the developers are in our shoes. The people developing for the 360 has had a lot more time to play around with the system and build their own custom libraries and modified development kits (i.e. modding the car), while those for the PS3 has just started. Seriously, it is a fallacy to think that there is a single explanation to a problem like that.
ryano @ Sep 4th 2007 1:58AM
6 years eh? i think i'll wait till that happens and keep playing what the 360 offers now thank you.
yohannefletcher @ Sep 4th 2007 2:29AM
there is a new update for the PS3 online, currently downloading it.
Pickoo @ Sep 4th 2007 2:38AM
Um, are all you retarded?
Just because you haven't seen the best of the PS3 yet, does that make it any worse??
The 360 is going to do the exact same thing! In a few years the games will look heaps better on the 360 and the Wii as well, not just the PS3!!!!
Like someone said before, the games now are amazing and that means that in up to 6 years they will look phenomenal!
Every year, the developers will find ways to make the games look better and better, thats why it seems like the 360 has 'good games now' and the graphics are better than the PS3 - its been out a year longer, so it will be slightly easier to program for since they have gotten used to it.
Don't just think that 'because the best of the console will be in six years, whats the point of getting it now?'. Use your minds.
Pickoo @ Sep 4th 2007 3:19AM
@ Smooth
Totally agree.
Groundskeeper Willie @ Sep 4th 2007 4:37AM
I do agree that a new console *should* be difficult to program, if we are going to try to develop experiences that are distinct from PC gaming. However Sony need to be careful in assuming that just because they won last time they will automatically win again. The 360 is a much more formidable opponent than the DC, and MS are more resourceful and more serious about winning than Sega were. Also, as others have pointed out, there is nothing stopping MS releasing the 720 or whatever in a few years time. Sony need to wow us with games in the next 12 months, otherwise they may never catch up.
LeChuck @ Sep 4th 2007 10:32AM
That's just the thing. The PS3 has far more potential than 360 but by the time that potential can be fully put to use Microsoft will be launching the NextBox and be right on track. PS3 is so far ahead of the curve that by the time the games catch up we'll be revving up for the next race, which kinda defeats the purpose.
SuicideNinja @ Sep 4th 2007 11:25AM
The problem with comparing now to before is that it isn't the same situation.
Sega was on the way out already. They were out of money...they didn't enough solid exclusives. Even today, Sonic as a franchise seems to have fallen into a void.
Microsoft on the other hand isn't going away. They have several solid exclusives. They aren't out of money, and in less than 6 years from now, they'll have a new machine that will leave the PS3 outdated.
Aside from that, how does having poor dev tools make the console better?
One could turn around and say that the original Xbox had the better specs, and was capable of a lot more than was ever developed on it. We saw what happened to that. *BUT* that would be an unrealistic comparison, just like Kaz's.
faraz @ Sep 4th 2007 12:33PM
haha okay fine, i'll wait 6 years to get a ps3 then
maybe in six years when xbox 720 and wii2 have come out, i'll find a good game on the ps3 to finally invest in it... plus by then, itll be really cheap hooray!
Cazam @ Sep 4th 2007 2:43PM
Yeah why buy a PS3 now if the full potential will be ready whitin 6 years and will be a lot cheaper.
Bear in mind that PC games will by then outclass the PS3 by a factor 6. Just like PC games like Oblivion looked last year compared to what PS2 games had to offer.
And don't forget that whitin 4-5 years the XBox 1080 will hit the market, and since that one is easy to develop for it will certainly look better.
I prefer 2 cheap consoles in 10 years then one expensive one.
Finally who even cares that Lair 2 will look even better?
ruibing @ Sep 4th 2007 1:46PM
@48
Sony is hardly gonna run out of money anytime soon. I mean really, for every PS3 they sell, they get a lot more money back. As soon as I got mine this summer, I've bought 19 PS2 games and 2 PSN ones (Stardust HD and Calling all cards).
Sonic (from Sega?) was never such a big franchise except a long time ago. The big ones are Konami, Square Enix, and more. Seriously, the only three games 360 has that PS3 doesn't is Bioshock (doesn't really count since its available on PC as well), Halo 3, and Mass Effect. There are just as much good exclusives due for the PS3 by Christmas: Uncharted, GT 5 Prologue, Rachet & Clank, Heavenly Sword, and Warhawk. Then in H1 2008, we'll have MGS4, FFXIII, Versus FFXIII, and LittleBigPlanet.
Microsoft will do better if they concentrate on one area for a change. They always release Halo for their consoles first to promote and leave their PC users in the dust for several years. And their practice of renewing their products in less than a decade makes it less worth while to own one, I mean look at how the PS2 just got God of War II and others not so long ago, I don't hear any games for the xbox anymore.
One could say that I am merely trying to add in some information you left out for your biased conclusion. Seriously, I can't even take the middle ground anymore because such biased comments leave me no choice but take the other side to balance things out.
Jonah Falcon @ Sep 4th 2007 2:29PM
In six years, the PS3 will be $150!
James @ Sep 4th 2007 4:33PM
You all seem to forget that in 6 years Sony will also have a new console out, as well as Microsoft and Nintendo, what he is saying is look at games like God Of War II for the PS2, the PS2 has just finally reached its full potential but as you can see by the time it finally did the PS3 was already released. Shure the PS3 will release its full potential 4-6 years down the line but by the time it does there will also be a new Sony console out that will run laps around the then old PS3, understand ?