Syntax Error:
Cell Processor spec sheet

@ Elim
It contains 8 SPU's (Cell equivalent of 'Cores'), it just happens that the PS3 reserves two of them.

I believe I read somewhere that the 360 is easier to develop for because its innards resemble more of a PC, while the Cell Processor is mainly new technology.

Yah, kind of hard to understand why Sony insisted on using Cells in PS3. Sure it is a very good and interesting processor architecture, but as we've seen x86 and Power PC architectures are just as good for games. And are easier to develop for. Not to mention that they are less expensive.

My guess is that Sony to a large degree shot itself in the foot while trying to lock in games to its own platform and reduce hacking. IE make it harder to port games from PS3 to 360.

Either that or they gave the engineers an unlimited budget and told them to go nuts - which lead to a very cool system, if not the most efficient or useful in this situation. :)

The PS3 might not be easy to develop games for, but damn, it is a monster at F@H.

Eggo:
1) Incredibly expensive? The Silicon Image host controllers used on every half-recent motherboard out there and add-on SATA cards cost like $2.
2) What problem? Ever used Steam before?
3) ...How would it disallow the use of it as a multimedia center? Haven't you ever heard of an HTPC?

I don't think you quite understand what I'm asking about.

No, I don't. What I'm picturing is you suggesting consoles replacing Discs with eSATAs as the storage format for games. What are you talking about?

Opening up a console's storage expandability allows extremely large/multiple game disks to be treated like how extremely large/multiple game disks are on PC's now; they're just installed on a hard drive. And when you run out of room on the system drive, you simply install it to an eSATA drive with no effect on performance. The same goes for large multimedia files.

It's one of the few things enjoyed by PC gamers since the dawn of time which could be enjoyed by console gamers without ruining the core of the console gaming experience.

Indigo_Dingo:

3. Disallowing the use of it as a multiimedia center (and don't say this would just be Sony, Microsoft tried to be a home entertainment center too when they backed the wrong horse)

What do you mean backed the wrong horse? This is rather off topic, but Media Center is the most advanced and powerful entertainment system out on the market. At least as far as I am aware.

The 360 is not being set up as a multimedia center - it is a client. You can hook it up to a Media Center PC anywhere in the house, and there are NetFlix, etc.

Sony's approach is ass backwards, though, IMHO. They are adding tuner support to the PS3 in with the DVB-T standard in Europe, but that is just a first very early step. I doubt very much that PS3 will support even a tenth of what can be done on an MCE machine. Hell, I would be very surprised if they were able to bring it over to US before 2010 (at the earliest) - too many DRM requirements. And don't get me started on Cable Labs and the digital cable hoops you have to jump though to get any PVR product shipped around here.

Elim Garak:

Indigo_Dingo:

3. Disallowing the use of it as a multiimedia center (and don't say this would just be Sony, Microsoft tried to be a home entertainment center too when they backed the wrong horse)

What do you mean backed the wrong horse? This is rather off topic, but Media Center is the most advanced and powerful entertainment system out on the market. At least as far as I am aware.

The 360 is not being set up as a multimedia center - it is a client. You can hook it up to a Media Center PC anywhere in the house, and there are NetFlix, etc.

Sony's approach is ass backwards, though, IMHO. They are adding tuner support to the PS3 in with the DVB-T standard in Europe, but that is just a first very early step. I doubt very much that PS3 will support even a tenth of what can be done on an MCE machine. Hell, I would be very surprised if they were able to bring it over to US before 2010 (at the earliest) - too many DRM requirements. And don't get me started on Cable Labs and the digital cable hoops you have to jump though to get any PVR product shipped around here.

I meant HD DVD's, which is likely to be the bigger aspect in terms of the console being a home entertaainment center than compatability with a MC PC.

Eggo:
Opening up a console's storage expandability allows extremely large/multiple game disks to be treated like how extremely large/multiple game disks are on PC's now; they're just installed on a hard drive. And when you run out of room on the system drive, you simply install it to an eSATA drive with no effect on performance. The same goes for large multimedia files.

It's one of the few things enjoyed by PC gamers since the dawn of time which could be enjoyed by console gamers without ruining the core of the console gaming experience.

Or to put it simply, allow the users to have multiple HDs they manage at will, like on PCs.
I have been happy to be able to hook my 40Go WD Passport USB HD onto my 360 to listen to my music, but unfortunately, unless it's a memory unit or the "internal" HD, you can't save your games over it... Similarly, having saved gamed uncopiable from one account to another is a retarded move, but so far I'm only nitpicking over my 360...
Time will tell if I throw a hissy fit at it...

Cyclomega:

I have been happy to be able to hook my 40Go WD Passport USB HD onto my 360 to listen to my music, but unfortunately, unless it's a memory unit or the "internal" HD, you can't save your games over it... Similarly, having saved gamed uncopiable from one account to another is a retarded move, but so far I'm only nitpicking over my 360...
Time will tell if I throw a hissy fit at it...

Well of course not, otherwise people could just share game data and not have to beat a game themselves. Really? Seperate users can't share data? I suppose I'm none too smart when it comes to the 360, that's why I like this thread. As long as it stays friendly.

They can share pix and music, but I don't think I have seen the option to copy my save over another account, then again maybe I haven't lurked my 360 enough...

I'll have a look tonight, I'll let you know if I said something stupid or not...

HuCast:
What about Final Fantasy XIII?

What of? Ps3 still gets it, and Versus XIII is still a PS3 exclusive (for how long I do not know) and I believe a FFXIII for PSP is in the workings, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

To OP: It's mainly optimization and lazy developers (Valve). Though out for about 2, 3 years the technology the PS3 uses is fairly new whether or not it has similar tech of the 360. Though, as Syntax Error said, the same complaining happend with the PS2 and the PS1. Developers always complained that the tech used for whatever PS system was hard to work with, but in the end they got used to it.

long story short... PS3 is harder to code for than the 360. In the beginning, developers just didn't want to take the time to learn the PS3's architecture, so, they'd shoehorn the game so that it'd run on the PS3, successfully making the game run like shit. Now, developers are starting to understand the hardware, although there are still some who refuse to get to know it, putting out some pretty decent ports for the PS3.

Moral of the story... before you give up on a system for software development, make sure you know the hardware first. it might surprise you.

TheLoneOne:
long story short... PS3 is harder to code for than the 360. In the beginning, developers just didn't want to take the time to learn the PS3's architecture, so, they'd shoehorn the game so that it'd run on the PS3, successfully making the game run like shit. Now, developers are starting to understand the hardware, although there are still some who refuse to get to know it, putting out some pretty decent ports for the PS3.

Moral of the story... before you give up on a system for software development, make sure you know the hardware first. it might surprise you.

This is main arguement here. It's not about which is more powerful, because saying a game like oh, "Skate." which ran horribly on the PS3 and damn near perfect on 360, because it was coded FOR the 360. Is like trying to say SEGA Genesis is more powerful than my PSP because Sonic The HedgeHog 2 lags a bit every now and then.

If anything, the PSP is a perfect example on how Sony doesn't like most NA formats (.mpg, .mpeg, .avi). It's picky, and even MP4s will run sketchy if they were done improperly. Everyone please keep in mind Sony is a JAPENESE COMPANY and most of their business, if not at least 70%, will come from JAPAN. So should they really need to abide by all of the North American developers wants and needs?

EDIT: I agree with Indigo, Lock and end this thread.

Elim Garak:

Yah, kind of hard to understand why Sony insisted on using Cells in PS3. Sure it is a very good and interesting processor architecture, but as we've seen x86 and Power PC architectures are just as good for games. And are easier to develop for. Not to mention that they are less expensive.

My guess is that Sony to a large degree shot itself in the foot while trying to lock in games to its own platform and reduce hacking. IE make it harder to port games from PS3 to 360.

Either that or they gave the engineers an unlimited budget and told them to go nuts - which lead to a very cool system, if not the most efficient or useful in this situation. :)

Give it time. Remember, God of War came out very late in the projected life span of the PS2, and look at it. It basically blew all PS2 games in the graphical department.

I think the problem with the PS3 is that Sony kinda "misadvertised" the thing. Sure, it's a game console, but they(at one point) were pointing out that the customer is getting a Cell Computer, not a machine to play games in.

It's a bit trickier, but think of the possibilities if developers gave it a chance.

I seem to recall an article which would be perfect here, I'll go find it.

EDIT: Three articles in fact:

1
2
3

CTU_Agent24:
NOTE: This is not a fan war.

Not gonna stop it from turning into one.

Anyway, it flip flops, not every 360 game looks better than the PS3 version, and vice versa.

Also, it depends a lot on people's T.V.'s

What looks better on 360? Off the top of my head, Rainbow Six: Vegas

What looks better on PS3? Off the top of my head, GTAIV and Burnout Paradise.

EDIT: I just noticed the "(and run)" in the title...and I always noticed better performance on PS3, especially if I can install a game. Maybe the 360 I play at my friends house is just shit.

Eldritch Warlord:
I seem to recall an article which would be perfect here, I'll go find it.

EDIT: Three articles in fact:

1
2
3

Using North American developed games and comparing them with a Homeland system vs. foreign system (with newer technology) doesn't proove anything. Well unless it's Gamespot's biased opinion.

To make a real arguement use a game like Devil May Cry 4. or other Japanese companies with 360 ports, then you'll have something.

Bias?

They all look the same to me. PS3 version is brighter as usual, but with textures and character models, etc. - only the "shitty ports" seem to be the ones that look bad...on either system (Like Spider-Man 3, Treyarch has been stuck making shitty ports for a long time. CoD: WaW is like, their 3rd "real" game.)

I have to interject here for a second on the jabs at Valve. I'm thinking some of you don't quite realize a key factor in Valve's stance. They are a PC developer. The only reason they've released stuff to consoles is because the 360 is built by Microsoft and thus runs on the same basic architecture they already built thier games upon, they change very little to accomidate a console release. Whereas it would take an entire rewrite to put it out on the PS3, something EA thought was a good idea and Valve let them try it.

As both Newell and Lombardi have pointed out, it's not in thier best interests to learn the PS3 architecture, they make PC games. Valve is notoriously bad at getting games out on time as is, we don't need them bogged down with the console fight when everything they design was never intended for consoles in the first place.

Syphonz:

Eldritch Warlord:
I seem to recall an article which would be perfect here, I'll go find it.

EDIT: Three articles in fact:

1
2
3

Using North American developed games and comparing them with a Homeland system vs. foreign system (with newer technology) doesn't proove anything. Well unless it's Gamespot's biased opinion.

To make a real arguement use a game like Devil May Cry 4. or other Japanese companies with 360 ports, then you'll have something.

I didn't say anything, I'm just giving a basis for discussion.

jsouth88:
It's because of the Cell processor in the PS3. It runs completely different from the processor in the 360. I don't know much of the technical side to it, but the 360's processor is supposed to be more traditional.

Many programmers (i'm looking at you valve) look at the Cell processor as more of a hassle than another opportunity to branch out to a wider range of gamers. This is why the Orange Box got bad reviews for PS3 and why Left 4 Dead isn't coming to PS3. Many companies don't find it neccesary or they see it is a pain in the ass, but I guess they forgot their job is to bring their games to everyone, even if it means a few grind nights.

To sum it up, the PS3 does have much more horsepower, but it takes some digging to get the most out of the system. Things are changing though. Many dev teams are using the PS3 first and then doing a faithful port to 360. Either way, they are both great systems, no doubt.

I believe the cell processor sacrifices everything for more accurate floating point operations when compared to the average x86 processor.

The 360 can run faster due to it's data being on a dvd which has about 8 gb whilst the PS3 has about 25 gb, 50 gb if double sided. The games are put on terms of the 360 capabilities so the PS3 has a hell a lot of wasted space. This makes loading slower because it takes longer to find all the data.

That's what I was told and I'm not completely sure on the honesty of that but oh well.

-Ricky

The PS3 is a funny piece of hardware. It's got a massively powerful CPU, but it's bottlenecked by various things, like the fact that it has a paltry 256 megs of RAM (+ 256 megs for the RSX, but that's graphics only). The 360 on the other hand has 512 megs that the developers can assign almost any way they want.

In terms of pure processing power, yes, the PS3 is vastly superior, but that advantage is reduced to the point that what you can actually get out of it is roughly equal. The problems the PS3 is facing that the Cell isn't really designed for games, memory speed bottlenecking, inferior development tools and the RSX was old tech already when the PS3 was released. Now, if the output you can get is roughly equal, the main platform it was developed for will probably be "better" at handling the game.

Jumplion:
Developers always complained that the tech used for whatever PS system was hard to work with, but in the end they got used to it.

That "always" isn't really true. The "hard" system to develop for 2 gens ago was the Sega Saturn, which had 2 CPUs, used quadrilaterals instead of triangles for 3D (unlike the competitors and unlike most 3D software of the time). Oh, and the tools sucked and in some cases were nonexistent. No wonder it tanked, even though it has some of the best games ever on it... like the superior versio nof SOTN and Radiant Silvergun.

The PS2 was harder to program for than the rest, but they got a nice headstart that programming for just the PS2 only made sense at the time: you had a large audience and the benefits of going multiplatform would've been negligible at best.

Needless to say, neither of these hold true for this generation. Unless the hardware manufacturer pays your check, it's pure madness to go release something on one platform. You'll even face problems on the Wii, which despite the fact that it's kicking ass all over the world, has rather poor sales rates for third party games.

Indigo_Dingo:
Lock this thread, the first sparks of a console war are burning.

Seriously, this needs to be considered.

Indigo_Dingo:
Lock this thread, the first sparks of a console war are burning.

lol, you're the one fueling it

but that's okay.

there's nothing wrong with a little friendly discussion as long as we're talking all technobabbly

Woe Is You:

Jumplion:
Developers always complained that the tech used for whatever PS system was hard to work with, but in the end they got used to it.

That "always" isn't really true. The "hard" system to develop for 2 gens ago was the Sega Saturn, which had 2 CPUs, used quadrilaterals instead of triangles for 3D (unlike the competitors and unlike most 3D software of the time). Oh, and the tools sucked and in some cases were nonexistent. No wonder it tanked, even though it has some of the best games ever on it... like the superior versio nof SOTN and Radiant Silvergun.

The PS2 was harder to program for than the rest, but they got a nice headstart that programming for just the PS2 only made sense at the time: you had a large audience and the benefits of going multiplatform would've been negligible at best.

Needless to say, neither of these hold true for this generation. Unless the hardware manufacturer pays your check, it's pure madness to go release something on one platform. You'll even face problems on the Wii, which despite the fact that it's kicking ass all over the world, has rather poor sales rates for third party games.

If you direct your attention to the bold print, this is where I'll start off.

Those great games you mentioned were made when getting used to the Saturn's hardware and tools, but unfotunately not enough developers caught on with them to really put much effort into it. Sega's marketing was horrible with too many of their different systems in different parts of the world, so how would they expect developers to get used to their new platform if they're still supporting their old one?

The Saturn was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't know how the consumers/developers will react to your product, so they didn't support the Saturn enough which gave way to the Dreamcast and such. I'd also assume the Saturn wasn't advertised enoguh to really get out because of all the other systems SEGA had to support, and when Playstation came out SEGA was basically in shambles.

Developers apparantly caught on with the Playstation's hardware more for whatever reason, so it was successful.

Really, the whole industry is pretty much based on luck and timing.

Jumplion:

Those great games you mentioned were made when getting used to the Saturn's hardware and tools, but unfotunately not enough developers caught on with them to really put much effort into it. Sega's marketing was horrible with too many of their different systems in different parts of the world, so how would they expect developers to get used to their new platform if they're still supporting their old one?

The Saturn was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't know how the consumers/developers will react to your product, so they didn't support the Saturn enough which gave way to the Dreamcast and such. I'd also assume the Saturn wasn't advertised enoguh to really get out because of all the other systems SEGA had to support, and when Playstation came out SEGA was basically in shambles.

Except the games I mentioned were a 2D platformer from the PS1 with extra features (like the ability to play as Maria) and a shmup. Those aren't really showcasing the power of any hardware: technically speaking SOTN could've been made on the SNES and the latter game wasn't a terribly good looking game even for its time.

And the Saturn not succeeding really wasn't just that the whole system was a clusterfuck in design or Sega's politics with releasing add-ons, though those were contributing to its success (or lack thereof). Sega also pissed off a bunch of developers AND chains like Wal-mart by a surprise attack launch. Now, if you don't have developers...and have pissed off big chains to the point of not selling your system, it's pretty much game over.

These grudges carried on to the Dreamcast era, part of the reason why Sega folded their hardware section.

Jumplion:

Developers apparantly caught on with the Playstation's hardware more for whatever reason, so it was successful.

Compared the competition, the PS1 was rather easy to develop for, the CDs provided the system with a cheap means of cramming loads of stuff onto a disc and there was a big company backing it. After Square jumped ship, other developers quickly moved to the PS1 too. And after that it's the obvious: people bought the PS1 since it had loads of games, developers made games because loads of people had the PS1. You really can't have one without the other in the middle of a console generation.

I've heard a couple of Devolopers say the PS3 is a bitch to work with. No idea why

I think it's cause games are easier to make for the 360 cause it just uses the same technology they're already used to. and the online thing is more prevalent there, so ps3 titles are just ports.
I'm not bothered, I liked Bioshock and then MGS4 and now the 360 is unloved and the PS3 is just there cause I like playing ps2 games.

Actually a few games which require multi-disc will suffer on the 360. (At least until they add the option to install games to the hard drive within a month or two.)