NowGamer: Dealing with third party developers 'was tricky', claims Sony's PS4 lead architect Mark Cerny.
and they sure got it
sorry ...they are not getting 1000 times the power of the PS3.
it's a so to speak what he said, and why do you care in first place? you are always trolling PS4 news
I eventually plan on getting a PS4 just like I have a PS3. I do like many of Sony's 1st party offerings.
yeah ok sorry but i remember every PS4 news is posted you need to come and react negatively on it. I can tell you even PS5 wouldn't be 1000times more powerful than PS3, you shouldn't take everything you read so serious.
@abzdine "yeah ok sorry but i remember every PS4 news is posted you need to come and react negatively on it. You do the EXACT same thing with regard to the X1! Absolute hypocrite. Also, its obvious iGamer didn't even bother reading the article (what a surprise). ""Basically the teams said that if we can afford to give them 1,000 times the performance of the PS3 then go ahead, do it." So basically, third parties shared a Jeremy Clarkson moment and wanted "more POWAH". Not surprising considering the long lifecycle of the PS3 and the developments made in tech.
Even $5000 pcs are not 1000 x the power of the ps3
@abzdine Perhaps he's reacting to the over excitement of the first comment.
@abzdine I have my preferences for sure but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate or want Sony product. I have a slim 120GB PS3 and am in the midst of The Last of Us which I will put up as one of the best games not only this year but ranks up in the top 10 for this generation. I give credit where credit is due and will call out things as I see fit. I have been critical of MS as well...and very critical of Nintendo. I love the gaming industry and Sony has been the hot topic lately for N4G so its hard to not comment in them.
Lmao....dlacy actually corrected the guy...lmao....some people
We wanted an Xbox 720 but instead we get a 180....
@Septic: no need to be agressive like this. the reason why i seem to hate the X1 is that it's an anti consumer product and all the lies around it. PS4 on the other hand everyone knows what is happening and for the first time Sony has been very good at communicating with consumers, which makes the PS4 a pro-consumer product and it deserves all attention. nothing hypocrit about this, just saying what i'm seeing, up to you to agree or not.
@abzdine: It's not always trolling if someone disagrees you know, especially when they're right. The PS4 is 10x the power of the PS3, not 1000x more powerful. But let's be honest, Cerny was just exaggerating what developers asked for to express an unobtainable and unrealistic goal, and iGAM3R-VIII just agreed for fun. If some of you can't tell the difference between literal and figurative, you might want to look up Aspergers
people can be against the misleading pr without hating the ps4...
Try reading the article next time..
Dacy13gal is one serious queen.
I want my own talk show but i aint getting it
- http://youtu.be/e__bsqUs648 Watch the ending.
So basically - It could have been even more powerful and had a better GPU, but developers would have run into the same problem as the PS3 with being un-familiar with the tech and thus having to re-learnr more stuff instead of just applying good ideas to what they know and making games. It's more important to make the dev process smooth and as fast as possible, than it is to have the best ultimate mega graphics.
Dude, A 1000 times more powerful then PS3 was never going to happen. Do you know how much that console would cost if it was that powerful?
The devs were asking for as powerfull hardware as Sony can provide but they ended with... this. Sony could design several time more powerfull sysytem with the same architecture but it would be more costly. IMO nextgen hardware is ok for a couple of years but will get old really fast and im disappointed with it.
PS4's only like 4-5 times stronger than the PS3 not 1,000 times.
The article never said the PS4 was 1000 times more powerful then PS3. He said the Developers wanted the PS4 to be 1000 time stronger then the PS3 but he never confirm or said it was.
I'm sorry, I'm Sony all the way but come on man...
Put the Kool-Aid down lol I'd say the PS4 is roughly 10 times more powerful than the PS3. Every new console is roughly 10 times more powerful than the last.
Does anyone know if there is a recorded stream of this?
"Wanted 1000 times more power than the PS3" What world are they on. I can see wanting 5-10 times more power, but 1000? Get real
Jesus Christ its just an figurative expression. Is it so hard to understand? :rollseyes:
Let me know when you spend $100,000 on the 1000 times more powerful PS4.
That would be a i7 pc. 64 gigs of ram, you know the gear we use to build games with.
I thought they said its tens times more powerful on Jimmy Fallon
I doubt the PS8 would have "1000" times the power of PS3.
assuming console cycle last 8 years, that 32 years from now. they say every year we been doubling power in graphic cards an technology improves. so it not hard too beleave, am sure a ps4 is 1000 times more powerful then a nes or super nes.
I wanted a power level of over 9000!
I actually want to see how many people use that extra 2 GB of RAM since you have that thing with MS about both versions having to be the same, one can't be superior on a rival platform. I mean they moaned on for more RAM for years so I hope they use it on the PS4
1st/2nd parties will pave the way I'm sure. There'll be nowhere to hide for not pushing if its viable to do so. Edit Some devs are too big to be bullied to the extent of some of the smaller ones.. Rock* will probably push as much as they can and ease ms off with a dlc rebate
The thing I don't understand is that with some high level developers, MS needs them more then they need MS Take Rockstar for example, lets say for GTA6 in the far future they decide to use that 2GB of RAM and give the PS4 advantages and more content over the Xbox One version...would Microsoft really tell Rockstar to dumb their own game down or to take a hike, of course they wouldn't. Even if they did the backlash of not letting them put GTA6 on the Xbox One would be huge and MS would finally give in So really some developers like Rockstar could get away with it if they wanted.
I thought there were multiplats that were better on the PS3 than 360? I don't think it was the cell/rsx that gave the PS3 the advantage, but it was BR. With BR you could have a ton more detailed textures. It wasn't that cpu/gfx of the 360 couldn't handle lets say Uncharted, but if they created one for 360 there wouldn't be as many levels.
Talent has been sonys biggest advantage or the use of the talent available. NaughtyMonicaDigitalDream could probably do wonders on the 360 ....Sony were smart and efficient in getting them on board and nurturing high quality from them.
@testerg35 That's because BD games could have up to around 5 times more content than a single DVD games, while CPU/GPU, even if better on PS3, was not 5 times more powerful or faster, so I guess DVD being pointed constantly is just a matter of what stand out the most. That said, BD is not the only reason why you don't see Uncharted 3 graphics level on Xbox 360. Actually it had everything to do with processing capabilities of each console, not simply because CPU/GPU on PS3 was better or not, but more due to architecture, from split memory (having a gfx memory much faster) to cell handling graphics tasks (thus liberating more to be taken from GPU). Despite being too complex for it's own good, PS3 architecture actually had a lot of potential for games and it definetelly paid off later on. Look at Battlefield 3 and Gears 3, possibly the best looking games on 360, but they are still not yet in the same level of MGS4, which is a 2008 game on PS3. The catch was it took some good 2 years for devs to take a grip with PS3 (a little more to get better development tools) and even so it demanded an extra effort most publsihers are not willing to allow their devs to make. But none the less the differences in hardware are there, giving some advantages for PS3 that were practical. Try comparing whichever you think is the best looking 360 game to say the latest Killzone, Uncharted or God of War... And it's almost abdurd PS3 graphics may still be evolving in some areas, but they are, look at the lighting on The Last Of Us (not a graphical marvel like Uncharted, but that lighting is impressive) or the models and animations in Beyond Two Souls. I would notice through that the only major technical advantage PS3 had over 360 was visual. Tune the graphics a little down and yes, there's no reason 360 won't run those games if it's a digital download or can be installed from multiple discs. AI, physics and other stuff like that, although some could been done better on PS3 theoretically, I had seen nothing pointing at major difference in capability there... In fact, I don't see any devs pushing at much better AI or physics anywhere, not even on PC where devs are not limited by hardware specs.
Why of why is right on the money. It wasn't power it was talent. I remember when the artist that made drake blew every ones mind with the same polygon count that we where all using. Unfortunately their game designers have not caught up with their hd content production. The power in the cell could not be tapped for games but it was a great peice of hype pr. Also most programmers only need 4gigs of ram. The rest will be used for data stacks like voxels, zbrush like programs or megatextures. Yet ram is cheap 64 gigs is $400 almost. Sony needs to drop the power branding and put the art at the fore front and invest in making fun playable addictive games. Call movie games what they are and lower the price also to compete with the box office. Otherwise ms will out spend them.
Why are you people always referencing the ms policy when it has nothing to do with graphics? Its getting really irritating because its is not what the policy states. People have explained it over and over but people just cant seem to get it. If it were that important, how come some current gen ports are much better on the ps3. Ff13 and la noire for example. Even if a developer couldnt get their games on the xbox 1, what would stop it from being successful on the ps4 alone if many were interested in playing it. People should go read the policy again for goodness sake.
It dosn't have to be graphics, it could be more content or extra features etc
I can honestly see more third party exclusives for sony this gen because the more power available from the ps4. maybe devs will want to push their games if they squeeze more power from ps4.
Most third party developers didn't even use the power of the PS3
We could go on about how the PS3 architect was complex and the PS4 architect is the most simple there is, but I don't feel like it sir.
Still doesnt make his statement untrue...
Is statement is as true as mine is, just adding to the statement, Minato-kun.
"We could go on about how the PS3 architect was complex..." that's just an excuse for laziness. it boils down to 3rd party devs not taking the time to really learn how to code for the PS3 architecture rather than the complexity of the architecture itself.
ziggurcat, I think it goes both ways. I don't think Sony had great dev tools to begin with which was the opposite of what MS had. 1st party devs had Sony to help them out.
I'm not sure why everyone is getting downvoted for saying this, it's a well known fact that due to the cell architecture of the PS3 it wasn't exactly the most easy thing to develop for. I'm not exactly sure to the full extent how difficult it was, I am not a developer, but certainly complex enough to give big time devs trouble. So with that logic third parties would have been facing a great challenge. Third parties don't always have the time or money for that much research.
nor did they use the power of the Xbox 360. Both consoles only saw a push with first party developers, and as the Ps3 had better first party support, we saw it pushed harder. The xbox 360 lacked the first party support the Ps3 had and didn't reach it's graphical potential with any exclusives. We only saw a few developers do well with it, such as Crytek, who were able to push both systems quite equally.
well that's because the ps3 was a really crappy console to develop for compared to the xbox and wii, the only people who knew how to use it were first party studios
That power was designed to decode blu rays not make games. Power is a funny thing. If it is designed for the wrong reason it will become useless. You could build a rocket but those don't make turns all that well. Now a jet that can out bank it would matter more. The rocket can only go straight yet a jet can do way more. So I applaud their change to x86. Yet I'm still not sold on gddr for a CPU yet. Xdr had similar claims yet it ended up being slow for very important things.
Funny thing is they want 1000 times better than the PS3 but they cant even maxed out the hell out of the PS3 and some are struggling on the cell...oh well wish they do better this time around the PS4
It's called the law of diminishing returns. Why bother putting in a ton of extra work just to make it look a tiny bit better.
Could not have said it better myself
I doubt that third party devs would be so simple to ask for unrealistic specs.
You're taking it too literal. What he is saying is that devs wanted a more powerful console.
Unfortunately most of the third party developers will not use the extra power, since when they make a game they design the mechanics of it on a PC and then translate it to the consoles OS, they only want their original design to work as properly it could and thats all, they don´t have interest on spend more time, resources or money to optimize the game for one console or the other, unless of course is DLC or exclusive content that can generate more money for them, thank god there is exclusives to make us really drool, maybe 1 or 2 at max will use the extra power at the end
Which is why it's possible that PS4 versions could be better, but nothing significantly noticeable. Some settings could be higher resolution, AA, AF, Texture quality, Blur quality, shadows, reflections, and more. But again the details will be barely noticeable by the majority of 3rd party devs. If you want to see a real difference you'll have to wit for exclusives and first parties again. Unless the PS4 dominates and becomes lead platform for the majority of games in which case you'l see down ports of X1 versions.
That's what I'm thinking, but how they whinned that they wanted more power on consoles, this time there's no excuses, the console is powerful and easy to develop on. Ill be keeping an eye on Bethesda to see what excuses they will have next gen.
Even if it could be made to be as easy as copying and pasting typed ideas that magically translated into game code, it would still have plenty of bugs if it's a Bethesda game. LOL. Great games, but they could use an overhaul in quality control as far as weird bugs.
Which is why PS4 exclusives will look the best next gen, because of first-party devs like naughty dog working with that specific hardware and learning to get the most out of it through continued optimization.
he just saying strong hardware,easy to develop for system.close to the p.c where they create the games on so it's smooth process without the struggle.
Something tells me if Kututragi was in charge of Sony..... (He ran for CEO but lost to Howard Stringer and then resigned, their is a very interesting article on how Kuturagi was ousted but I cant find it) He would have made a expensive 4K system with a cluster-f*ck architecture that would out-power nearly any ultra high-end PC but instead we got Cerny, his vision was a affordable, powerful and easy to develop for system that will have a positive impact on the industry. Kuturagi was a mad genius and a visionary, all though I loved his bold visions ala 4D and I can bet my bottom dollar that Kuturagi's Ps4 would be ultra-powerful(more so than Cerny's Ps4) but I prefer Cerny he may not be as bold as his predecessor but his approach benefits everyone from devs to gamers and that matters more than how many Teraflops the system is capable of.
I heard one journalist say "if Ken were still in charge, the PS4 would probably be powered by a team of hamsters linked together by some crazy device". Which reminds me of a question I've been asking for years. If the human brain is referred to the most powerful computer in known existence, when are they going to start powering computers with organic 'brain-like' processors that are 'grown' in a lab?
If IBM is to be believed, it is.
Don't start giving Ken crazy ideas. His PS5 will be organic like synthetic brain device that will telepathically create holodeck like games environments in our own living rooms. Meanwhile they will become self aware, work towards a goal of conquering the world, and make everyone bow down before their "father" Ken Kutaragi... O_O
This is taken out of context. I watched the live speech and Cerny said something along the lines that if somehow Sony could produce a machine that was 1000 times more powerful than the PS3 then devs would be extremely happy since technology has grown significantly during the PS3's launch and it could give the dev's a much a great playing field when creating games. The dev's were not expecting to have 1000 times the PS3 power. It would be ludicrous.