Factor 5 To Game Developers: Make the PS3 Version First

Eggebrecht comments on the number of development studios who have so far complained that programming games for the PS3 is far too difficult in comparison to the 360. In his opinion, the majority of these complaints come from development teams who try to port games from the 360 to the PS3 instead of doing it the other way around.

The story is too old to be commented.
Dlacy13g3756d ago (Edited 3756d ago )

Was the group of Sony VP's who were controlling the strings to this puppet. I am sorry ...but what a load of PR crap. This "interview" is more like a Sony advotorial than an actual interview. I especially love the "develop for the PS3 first not second comment". (rolling eyes) yeah that totally makes sense right now for most of the 3rd party devs out there.

LSDARBY3756d ago

You cant win with people like you around if someone like F5 say it, xbots are like theyre basically sony, if EA were to say it "Ea dont know what theyre on about Sh*t game devs". But if someone from Ubisoft were to say it they'd be right on the ball cus they arent biased at all :rollseyes: :P

Dlacy13g3756d ago

Actually you are dead wrong... When Epic tried to say Gears of War could only be done on the 360 way back when I rolled my eyes too. Fact of the matter these systems are far more similar than either camp wants to admit.

I just am laughing at this article in particular because well...its pretty blatant with regards to the "pro" Sony news.

I am pretty even when it comes to handing out praise for games. I think Lair is going to be a very good game. I still have questions around it but it definitely is good. I also thought RFOM and Motorstorm are both excellent games for the PS3. And if you bothered to see my post in the FEAR comparison I stated pretty much exactly what I am saying here...the systems are very comparable.

I know you feel I am an have your opinion...but I am about as partial as anyone here when it comes to good games. This article...was a joke of an interview. enough said.

Torch3756d ago

What existential facts or evidence substantiate your harsh accusations?

I'm seriously asking because I'd honestly like to hear why.

InMyOpinion3755d ago (Edited 3755d ago )

What else can they say, really? Suddenly, all Ps3 developers come out to say how much they're enjoying developing for it.
Hmmm...could this have anything to do with the criticism a while ago about the Ps3's architecture being difficult to work with?
I'm a bit suspicous about all these statements from developers. They feel biased to me. Too obvious. I'd like to hear someone who has developed for both the 360/Ps3 to give his/her opinion instead.

And yes Dlacy13g, people on this site sometimes seem blind to the fact that both MS and Sony (Nintendo too) are moneyhungry multinational corporations who would do or say anything to get you to buy their products. They don't care about you, only about where your money goes.

@Virtual Gamer. Thx, really nice interview. He was completely unbiased.

VirtualGamer3755d ago

Here you go a Xbox and Xbox 360 developer who is making their first PS3 game.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3755d ago
GameJunkieJim3756d ago

We get it, the PS3 is hard to port to because it doesn't have unified memory.

That's Sony's fault isn't it?

Enough of this story.

DJ3755d ago

That's actually wrong. Unified Memory has very large performance deficits due to the fact that both the CPU and GPU access the same pool of memory. This leads to lower bandwidth and more issues for developers since they don't have a set amount of RAM for the CPU or GPU -> they can end up fighting for resources. The other downside is the usage of one memory type, in this case GDDR3. GDDR3 RAM has high bandwidth, but high latency as well. This aspect is well suited for GPU's since they access large amounts of data, but not very often. CPUs on the other hand are constantly accessing small chunks of data.

Split Memory Pool also has an issue, which is communication between the two memory pools and processors. Sony and Rambus fixed this problem by putting a 30GB/s dedicated bandwidth line between Cell and RSX, as well as a total of 48GB/s of bandwidth to their memory pools. Plus XDR RAM runs at 3.2GHz, so that helps as well.

Unified Memory Architecture is just a fancy term that Microsoft likes to throw around as being superior; sadly, that's just not the case.

TylerDurden3755d ago

that is why I am always replying to what you post. What you say doesn't seem to make sense. It would seem that Unified Memory would be better and would result in less contention for resources. What if the GPU needs more than 256 MB of RAM but the CPU doesn't? In the split model there would be a resource issue, and in the unified model there wouldn't. The only way a resource issue pops up on unified if more than 512 mb is needed. Split model issues can crop up if either need 256MB regardless of how much overall memory is needed.

It would seem the likelihood of a resource issue is greater on the split model.

CG3755d ago

Thats why the latest and future ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards has/will have UNIFIED architecture!!!!!!! you are so full of [email protected], you dumb moron!!!

GameJunkieJim3755d ago

Sorry, but if any piece of graphic data needs say, 300 MB of RAM, the PS3 is out of luck. And you can have the fattest pipe in the world, but does it compare to having integrated EDRAM ready for swap?

I think not.

DJ3755d ago

"In a game, the most memory consuming process is graphics.
Tranditionally, we process graphics by doing the following:

1) Loading data from South Bridge to system RAM,
2) CPU load comand and data from system RAM and store GPU command and result back to system RAM,
3) CPU copies the GPU command and result data to video RAM,
4) GPU process the GPU command and result to build up the graphic and output it.

When you look at this, Unified Memory has an advantange of saving a move, which is to copy data from system memory to video memory, since system RAM is Video RAM.

However you don't have to do so with PS3. Since Cell is so damn fast we can do JIT instead by buffering. So the process becomes the following instead.

1) CPU load command directly into SPU and data to system RAM,
2) GPU command and Result generated from SPU got directly copy into video RAM
3) GPU process the GPU command and result to build up the graphic and output it. If you look at this carefully you will find this is a even faster process then unified RAM.

Since commands are copy directly into SPU, so time for copy CPU command to system RAM, and time for caching the command in CPU is totally out of the picture in PS3."

----------------------------- ------
Split vs. Unified Memory arguments are usually based on the assumption that Cell is an x86 or PowerPC processor, when in reality it's quite different. Arguments also 'forget' about the dedicated FlexI/O connection between the CPU and GPU in the PS3.

RSX actually has XDR RAM Communication Logic built-in, AND has twice the texture/lighting cache of ATI's Xenos GPU (I'm assuming this is their best offering). What this means is that PS3's Split Memory pools are actually unified through a 30GB/s connection. In addition to this, developers are using Cell to set up RSX functions such as back-face culling, rasterization, texturing, and even complex GPU functions.

The best part is that when the RSX accesses XDR RAM, it isn't dealing with the high-latency of GDDR3 RAM. Yes, this is more complex for PS3 developers initially, but the benefits it brings are massive. It leaves the RSX free to concentrate on complex shader routines. Xenos has unified shaders which can switch between vertex and shader routines, while RSX has a distinct emphasis on shaders over vertices. The reason they could get away with this is because Cell and FlexI/O were thrown into the equation. The guys over at Ninja Theory are pushing something like 3~4 million polygons per scene, and that's without Cell-based assistance for vertex functions.

----------------------------- -------------
As the Mature, and always eloquent CG stated: "Thats why the latest and future ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards has/will have UNIFIED architecture!!!!!!! you are so full of [email protected], you dumb moron!!!"

Unified Shaders are brand new technology, and they haven't been fully developed. There are still performance issues, but the benefit is that developers can focus more and more and shader routines since polygon counts are increasing so much. However, the RSX was built as the pinaccle of Dedicated Architecture and has aspects that even the more recent Unified GPUs lack in, such as lighting and vertex cache.

Cell also helps in RSX's performance, and this is the reason why nVidia was forced to post two sets of performance benchmarks for RSX: one with RSX by itself, and the other when connected to Cell.

achira3755d ago

DJ is very correct. everyone will say that who has any idea of the stuff. CG you dont understand what you are saying. unified shaders are not the same as the unified memory! unified memory is not as effective as splitet memory but faster and easier to program. the ps3 has a big advantage at that.

GameJunkieJim3755d ago

Let's take Oblivion. Launch title for the 360, and a damn near perfect port to the PS3.

Or is it?

The PS3 has a lack of video memory and usable processing memory, something Oblivion swaps in between at a very high rate in general gameplay in the 360 version.

This is why the 360 version is playable off of a disc alone, and the PS3 version not only cuts some draw distance, but has to install 95% of the game to the hard drive. Check it, the game is barely 4.7 GB, and it takes up that much on the HD. If you're unlucky enough to have a 20GB PS3, that means that only 4 games of that caliber will be playable on the system. The 360's shared RAM allows for the game to use it as it needs it, for whichever purpose it deems, and doesn't require an extra step of loading anything to a hard drive. It's RAM is more useful.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3755d ago
SmokeyMcBear3756d ago

ok. developers want to make money correct? The user base has grown for both consoles, ps3 is over 3 million, and 360 is almost at 11 million in peoples homes right now. A game developer is not going to ignore 3 million potential customers, its safe to say a developer will want to put a game on both consoles.. right.. still with me? Ok, what costs more to develop for, more man hours?.. porting a 360 game to the ps3, or a ps3 game to the 360.? It says it is much easier to design a game with a ps3 system in mind, then place it on a 360, then the other way around. Its pretty simple. If a developer wants to cut costs and spend the least amount of time developing for both systems, it is much easier to put a game based on ps3 architecture over to a 360 than a 360 architecture over to a ps3. That is all that is being said, don't understand what there is to flame about.

masterg3756d ago

And 3 million will triple if not more in the time it takes to develop a game. Sony has so many games which are sequels from ps2/ps1. This type of game sells much more consoles than new titles.

frostbite063755d ago

Microsoft has a lot of games which are sequels from the ps1/ps2 too. : )

Odion3756d ago

They could just ignore the PS3

TheXgamerLive3756d ago (Edited 3756d ago )

Why does the same 3 or 4 postings keep apearing every few days? Is this all the so called good positive ps3 news, and it's not even true/correct news.

Don't get me wrong, there's good news out there about the ps3, I just wish that's what we saw instead of repeats. This is iritating.