Sony has been consistently delivering this console generation, but the company's failure to do so in the past is catching up with the PS5.
PS3 wasn’t a mistake at all. It was a chance taken that didn’t pay off in the end.
I still to this day wish developers got familiar with the Cell architecture and it succeeded. It would destroy modern CPUs today in nearly every way.
I loved the PS3, the PS4, and my PS5 even though I wish we would have had more than one new-gen exclusive that we've gotten so far, R&C. However, the lies beforehand with "Killzone CGI trailer being real-time" and basically saying the same with Motorstorm were shitty. They both turned out to be good games, but that was shitty. Going with the custom cell architecture was a bad move, as good as that technology was, and allowed the Xbox360 to gain market share. They did execute the PS4 with near perfection with games and hardware to gain that back though.
Like all companies, Sony has made mistakes, that's my main point. Yeah, Covid messed things up, but like I said, I really wish we had more current-gen exclusives on the PS5 to show what it really can do. Hopefully next year... I think MS screwed us over with the Series S (and I can say that with confidence working on a new-gen title).
There's more then one made for only ps5 games out there. Look harder. He'll ones on ps plus
Returnal? Demons Souls Remake? Ghostwire Tokyo? Gran Tourismo 7?
All new gen PS5 exclusives.
Returnable is knushwood. That's more then the competition right there.
Returnal is coming to PC. Demon's Souls is from 2008. Ghostwire Tokyo is on PC. GT7 is on PS4.
The PS3 itself wasn’t a mistake, and we got some awesome games out of it. The cell itself was a huge mistake though.
“It would destroy modern CPUs today in nearly every way.”
This just isn’t true though, PowerPC architectures are miles behind modern x64 CPUs and are even further behind the high end ARM chips - especially with how modern day CPUs and GPUs communicate and handle memory. Also power per watt for ARM is insane if you look at high end custom chips like the Apple M series.
Realistically, we will see games consoles move from x64 to ARM probably next gen, if not, the one after.
The "ARM is the future!!!" talking point has been going on for literally decades now. You making that claim actually triggered a hit of nostalgia for me. It's not gonna happen though. BTW it's "x86".
@frosty That conversation around ARM being the future only really existed for mobile devices due to the better power consumption.
Now we’re at the point where ARM chips like those from Apple can massively outperform x64 chips.
Everyone I’ve spoken to (on the engine side of things) since the M1 launched is fully expecting a transition to ARM for next gen. Especially since we’re getting to the point where consoles are really pushing up against reasonable limits for heat/cooling, unit size and power consumption.
“ BTW it's "x86"”
No it’s not. x86 is a 32bit architecture. The 64bit version is known as x86-64, which is then commonly shortened to x64.
CELL was nonsense for gaming. If you wanted something highly parallelized you used a GPU since by 2006 that was the way the wind was already blowing. GPUs became capable of much wider general purpose tasks starting with DX10 and by their very nature were already extremely parallel processors. Xbox 360's GPU was the earliest example of this unified shader design.
Therefore if you had that capability in your modern GPU, you wanted to then pair it with a powerful general purpose central processor to do the kind of tasks difficult to program a GPU for. Particularly code that was helped by a powerful branch predictor, out of order execution and plenty of cache. In other words, a more conventional CPU.
CELL was evidently not very good at what a GPU could do great and not very good at what a CPU could do great. The worst of both worlds, and difficult to program to boot. Thus it failed. It failed before it was even crammed into PS3, a decision that was flawed and made to try and push the technology which Sony had invested a fortune into the mainstream. Late on in the machine's development Sony had little choice but to go to Nvidia and ask for a real GPU when it became clear the graphics performance of PS3 was never going to compete.
So here was this machine, a CPU that was not great at being a CPU or a GPU, with a real GPU albeit licensed on a costly contract from Nvidia, already dated in design. PS3 architecture was a mess start to end. Cerny came in and tossed the whole concept out for PS4. Happy days, success and good times returned again....
@orchard the ARM debate predates the mobile device conext by many years. Until you see ARM processors make major inroads in the Windows PC market, you're not going to see it in the console market. Snowballs chance in hell. It's not about what's fastest, it's about what's expedient for developers.
PS. I am not saying I think we're still paying for the PS3's mistakes, but I can draw a little parallel with the lack of new-gen exclusives. Not completely Sony's fault, but as much as I love God of War Ragnarrok, it really looks PS4 gen. I would have loved to see what Sony Santa Monica could have done without worrying about the PS4, and the same with Horizon even if that was a better-looking game.
It's covid mostly mixed with some for some reason gamers don't remember this happens all the time. About the first year year and a half. It's went on about 6 months longer then normal. You have covid the economy. Why wouldn't they try to profit off ps4 if they still can. You want Sony to make more games right. Selling horizon and gow on ps4 will help that. If it's any consolation prize. The other side doesn't have anything.
I think you have things backwards. A lot of PS4 gen PS exclusive 1st party games still look decidedly this gen!
I'm saying PS4 games were ahead of the curve. Driveclub still looks great next to FH5 and GT7. I go back to it regularly and have yet to see anything on any platform beat Driveclub in every area in the racing genre. Even GT7 on PS5 has some shortcomings compared to Driveclub.
"I still to this day wish developers got familiar with the Cell architecture and it succeeded. It would destroy modern CPUs today in nearly every way."
Damn, even this many years later you're still rolling out that rationalisation? Sony clearly acknowledged what they did wrong with their design of the PS4, you're allowed to as well.
There's a reason nobody is using the cell design anymore. A bunch of specialised cores is inherently poor design for gaming. They ended up getting underutilized, one or two chores palmed off to specific threads or primarily used to prop up the potato GPU in the PS3, with much effort. By design they were next to impossible to fully utilise. A better idea perhaps might have been to have a conventional CPU that has cores that support all the operations developers want to use so they might be able to fully utilise it along with a much better GPU (ie like the PS4). It's okay man, that generation is over. You can pull down your console war defences and be at peace, and reflect rationally about the past.
There wasn't a bunch of specialized cores unless you mean they're all equally built for the same purpose. All the Cell did was essentially give us high core count CPU benefits in a smaller and cheaper package that had insane flexibility of what it could do that a normal CPU could not. The downfall was programming, the only downfall. The Cell was not so cut and dry for scheduling tasks and optimizing for. Everyone was used to x86, and even though the 360 was also PowerPC architecture like the Cell, it still was by design far closer to x86 than it was to the Cell.
The Cell was incredible for gaming. Again the only issue was developing for it. Maybe that's what you mean. The end result when devs figured it out they got insane results. The conventional CPU route would have actually been more expensive on them. Part of the benefits of the Cell was how much cheaper it was to produce. It was smaller, far more versatile, faster, and insanely more scalable than any other consumer, and basically all commercial CPU's at the time. They sucked it up and listened to the majority of devs and ditched it for the greater good of developer friendliness. But, the Cell was absolutely a performer.
If it were easy to program for then it wouldn't have been ditched. If it kept being successful then imagine how great the PS4 would have been when it only had a slight CPU boost coming from PS3. A better Cell would have been more cost effective than the Jaguar. Could have maybe had a better GPU and still kept the $400 MSRP. Even today the Cell is highly respected by engineers for how powerful it was. It was comparative to high end CPU's for years, and imagine how strong a new generation Cell would have been.
Perhaps I have poorly worded that. I am referring the SPUs as the specialised cores. They are not able to be utilised plainly like the PPEs were, that the Xbox 360 had more of and used exclusively and Sony used as the core of the cell. The cores that for many games were the ONLY threads that many games actually bothered to use on the PS3.
"If it kept being successful then imagine how great the PS4 would have been when it only had a slight CPU boost coming from PS3" actually I think the PS3 to PS4 had a slight drop rather than boost, but because it wasn't a painful architecture developers easily could make more use of it. I believe we're mostly in agreement here, just disagreeing about whether making a system that's hard to develop for and hard to make full use of is a good or bad thing for gaming/game development.
Sony was trying to push the cell to become mainstream the same way they did with blu ray. After all MS was pushing hd DVD and failed, had they succeeded we probably wouldn't have blu ray now.
In a modern age, that architecture goes against Sony's goals of PC releases though.
I actually appreciate the move away from the CBE because it was developer friendly in two ways: it is easier and the uniformity of architecture makes development cheaper across multiple platforms.
CBE was a good way to assure you have exclusives because of the heavy lifting needed to make 2+ distinct versions.
Honestly, I think one of two things would have happened if Sony still used it:
1. They would have to make their consoles insanely powerful (i.e, not cheap) with a ton of memory so devs could work better with it without demanding a massively increased level of effort. If they split the memory pools again, that would be tricky. Sadly you would also see maybe 1-3 games in a generation properly utilize the hardware in that scenario. Sony and Microsoft working with the same architecture is really a gift to developers knowing how expensive game development gets every generation. Heck, how many studios didn't survive gen 7 because they had one or two commercial failures? Crazy to think about.
2. Developers would have likely rage quit PlayStation development. Of course, PlayStation is a huge name but the risk would be too significant. I think they changed because they had to and the PS4 was clearly engineered with feedback from developers in mind.
All of that said, what is the point of specialized hardware like that at this point in time? Power squeezed out of the hardware has kind of reached a peak. More than anything, visuals come down to art style at this point. We're now focused on performance in terms of frame rate and ray tracing, as well as features which I think Sony did a great job with (DualSense).
Ummmmm. No. LOL.
"I still to this day wish developers got familiar with the Cell architecture and it succeeded. It would destroy modern CPUs today in nearly every way."
The cell wouldn't destroy modern CPUs. It was VERY powerful for it's time, but it's 16 years old. Modern CPUs have hundreds of times more transistors, larger and faster caches, etc.
In 2006 the fastest on the market CPU had about 250 million transistors (and cost $999), a fast CPU today has over 2 billion transistors and costs $400.
If the Cell was this incredibly powerful and efficient product, Sony would still be using it. But it cost too much, devs couldn't get what they wanted put of it (and not just for lack of trying), so Sony made the smart decision to switch direction to more typical hardware and make astute and creative customizations to improve performance over the competition. In comparison, their shift has paid off exponentially in comparison to the PS3.
The Cell architecture was garbage and it didnt succeed bc it was garbage. That's like wishing for fire not to be hot so you can stand in it...
How does any of this make sense?
What part doesn’t make sense? We still don’t have PS3 back compat natively on PS5 - mainly due to the CELL.
Finally someone who gets it. I swear seeing comments about having to stream ps3 games. I try to explain why to people but always end up with downvotes
Again, how does any of this make sense? BC as a feature isn't holding anything back. Who buys a new system and makes a big deal about what old games it doesn't play? As a forward thinker I can't imagine basing any judgement of a new system on how it plays old ones. The goal is to purchase as many new games for said system as possible. If the concern of what old games you're able to play is a factor then why even bother getting a new system? How many new experiences do you have? If you have a healthy supply there should be no reason to be thinking 2 generations back.
You sound like Jim Ryan. A good game is a good game, whatever platform and whatever generation. I'm not even gonna entertain the idea of telling someone what games they should be thinking about playing. The entire reason we have so many remakes and remasters is because those games were classics in the first place. People love to play those experiences again in their original format. There's a whole market for retro gaming.
What's most embarrassing is backwards compatibility used to be such a big deal on PlayStation, but now they couldn't care less. Microsoft, who doesn't have anywhere near the legacy PlayStation does, put together an entire platform dedicated to backwards compatibility all the way back to the original Xbox. We couldn't even get PS1 games on PS4, because they just stopped caring. Seems like they may have finally woke up, just barely, with the new PlayStation Plus.
That's a good thing as Jim Ryan is the goal. Corporate interest is my life so understanding their directives no matter if it doesn't cater to my wishes is key. BC is cool but is in no way a necessity to support their efforts. My motivations are to continue to work towards the goal, if that includes supporting Sony that means that my support is determined by their continued dedication to the progressive nature of the industry. If BC has to be sacrificed so be it. Whinning or dwelling on a feature or two does absolutely nothing in the effort to move forward. I'm procorporation because without their contributions there's no industry. If you don't like it then don't support it.
You're telling me you've never gotten an itch to replay an older game? Hell, I'm having serious Marvel vs Capcom 2 withdrawals right now. And no amount of new games will keep me from wanting to play that again. Especially if they could release it online with online multi-player like they did on Xbox 360.
"If BC has to be sacrificed so be it. Whinning or dwelling on a feature or two does absolutely nothing in the effort to move forward. "
But.....including backwards compatibility on new-gen consoles IS a step forwards. It provides your customers with something they want, which in turn means more people are willing to buy your product, which means more money to keep making new products.
I remember when PS3 first came out. The first run of them had full BC. You could literally put in any disc from PS2 and play it. Now we don't even have that on either Xbox or PS. And we haven't had that level of BC since the first run of PS3.
Say what you want, but people like going back and playing old games, and if they can do that without pulling out a dusty old console then that's even better! And that's assuming they even still have that old console. I played tons of PS2 games on my PS3. And still played all the new ones I wanted.
Your argument isn't "forward thinking". It's depriving something from customers that they want. Which is usually not a good thing to do.
I tend to buy new games almost daily so I am more of the beat and delete type. I do revisit a memory at times but nothing motivates me to want to play old games. Perhaps if I missed something and they remaster it I'd consider playing it. I've got four launch PS3s and I've only played Kingdom Hearts 2 and FF12 on it. I finished neither until they were both remastered for PS4. Even when it's there as an option I'm least likely to play it again. Once I buy a new system that's what my focus is on.
If old games are your jam...
Why dispense with old but still working HW? Are you really that hard up for space? I doubt it.
What makes their complaints even more puzzling is that they forgot that their PS5's play PS4 games. BC isn't long forgotten just not easily obtainable on the current HW.
Obviously it is possible PS3 games were ported to PS4 with enhancements all the way around games like Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 all made the cut on PS4 with enhancements in all areas which was previously thought impossible by gaming media. Even so PS4 games work just fine on PS5 and many PS2 games work just as they did on PS2 via software porting. I personally have many of the PS2 games I'm replaying on PS5 but I only paid $15 for all of them which are the PS4 versions which work fine on PS5... so BC works fine, it just isn't as comprehensive as OG $599.99 USD PS3's BC was and that isn't a problem (at least for people like me who keep their old HW).
Let’s not pretend the preservation of gaming isn’t an important topic just because your preferred platform doesn’t support that particular feature
People would laud being able to play PS3 games natively on PS5, especially with the improved performance that would bring
Why do you get to decide what topics are important?
Who has best BC? Microsoft. Who is in last place by a gigantic margin? Microsoft.
BC doesn't sell consoles. It's a nice feature to have. But I'd rather companies put time into new games. That's why Microsoft fails.
Are you really arguing that the preservation of a medium isn’t important?
Just because a feature isn’t on the leading platform doesn’t mean it’s not important.
N64 featured built in four controller ports without the need of a multitap. Are you going to argue that wasn’t important because it didn’t outsell PS1?
Dreamcast and Xbox had centralized online services while PS2 outsold both combined. Are you going to argue that centralized online isn’t important until your preferred brand does it?
PS3 featured region free software, cross buy, and rechargable controllers when it was in last for most of the gen. Are you going to argue the one features didn’t matter until it eventually outsold Xbox 360?
Wii U and Xbox One had support for external HDD before PS4 did. Are you going to argue that the at feature wasn’t important until PS4 had it?
Just because you prefer new games doesn’t mean other people don’t value legacy software. And seeing how successful so many rereleases have been it’s clear that there’s a huge market of people that like to play those titles from generations ago.
no wonder "game preservation" is that important to you. Unless it's a hyped up walking sim/interactive movie on IndiePass you got nothing to play except old 1st party and Bugthesda games. Nice deflection. The xbox community buys less and less 3rd party software each year (well 3 straight years to be exact) so we know anything that requires payment like Callisto is out of most Xboxer's wheelhouses.
Who wants to brute strength a old game barely pushing 720p and 30 FPS with clunky animations over new software? Yeah we know who - just quit pretending the reason is preservation. All those NON-enhanced 360 titles that play natively look like straight dogshit on modern 4K OLED displays with that weird shimmering effect. If BC is that important to you, there's a platform that caters to it. Here's a hint: it has two letters in it; one's a P and the other is a C
If game preservation is important, console preservation should be as well. I don't see how new consoles being able to play old ones has somehow been a big factor for game preservation. Both these new consoles so far have been largely the Super Pro version of last-gen.
Just got a PS5 recently with God of War. I would have gladly paid an extra $100-$200 on a PS5 Pro or upgraded model that played PS3 games too.
I have a PS3 in my room, but it'd be nice to be able to play with a comfy controller and in the living room without packing everything up and moving it.
PC is a good platform with regard to playing many games from across generations, but there are SOOO many games that are exclusive to PS1, PS2, and PS3 I'd love to play on a modern device. I have a PS3 hooked up to my bedroom TV, and I'd prefer not to have to move it anytime I want to play in my living room.
Anyway, Xbox could never exist and I'd still want BC. Sony was doing BC before Xbox existed. I don't own a series x and I doubt I'll buy one anytime soon. But if I did have a large collection of 360 games, I'd probably nab one. Instead I have a large collection of PS3 and PS4 games lol
Why are you bringing up Xbox? Sounds like you’re deflecting the issue by turning this into a console war topic. It’s ridiculous to want to ignore PlayStation’s legacy software because somehow that fuels your console war mentality. It only seems like you’re against such an idea because Sony isn’t supporting that.
I never saw such a negative mindset about BC from people when PS2 and first models of PS3 had it. Only when PS4 was the first Sony system not to have it at all did certain people become somehow against the idea of such a useful feature. Sony understands it’s use hence why PS5 can play PS4 games, thus ruining anybody’s credibility that the feature doesn’t matter.
Preservation is always going to be an important topic. A great game will always be a great game no matter when it was released. If it weren’t such a big deal you wouldn’t see so many games from generations ago being rereleased on a constant basis.
PS3 emulation still isn’t a 100% method on PC. Plus people would still rather game on consoles.
You're completely correct, at least for me. I don't buy new systems based on how well they can play older games or even if there is BC at all. I buy new systems for new games and if they choose to remaster an oldie, otherwise I break out the ps2/ps3 those 2 times a year. People will try to make the craziest things seem "important" just to prove their point.
Still hoping they're secretly working on PS3 BC and will add it some day. I'm wondering if PS3 discs would even work given they probably changed how it's read for licensing and junk.
I’m hoping so too, and some recent hires suggest they may be looking into it.
While I’d like my disks to work, at this point I’d also settle for having to rebuy (at a heavily discounted price) PS3 games digitally. Anything to have games like MGS4 run natively on my PS5.
Although that being said, I don’t think we could realistically rely on Konami to enable that / ship a digital version of MGS4.
Same, have a lot of PS3 discs but also a decent selection of digital from PS+ and purchases, couldn't mind rebuying either. PS+ has quite a few I want to play but won't stoop to streaming them.
Yeah, some physical only games will be stuck to streaming PS3/PC emulation if they don't allow to read PS3 discs on PS5.
Me too. Would be tough considering the PS3 architecture but not impossible. The PC PS3 emulators are getting pretty damn good on high-end hardware though.
Exactly, if some freelance devs making some end of life PS3 games run at 1080p and 60fps. Sony def has the engineers to do it better or they can coop/hire the devs working on the PC emulator.
I was hoping the Cell could still have been in production and used as their auxiliary chip for background tasks, downloads, online features, etcetera. That way they could have it used for backwards compatibility but with the new GPU.
PS3 is a very strange product... If you look at It alone It's a colossal failure, but If you look at what It did to Blu-ray Disc and Playstation First party software... Hard to say If PS3 is a Win or a "L".
What are you talking about, PS3 ended up on top at the end, didn't it? Cell held it back a bit, but it is still a win.
A win for whom? Let's not pretend that the PS3 didn't get slapped the entire generation and only caught up when it didn't matter. The Cell was a horrible mistake and we're still paying for it. Sony also lost billions. If that's a win you're playing the game wrong.
The production alone nearly tanked Sony Corp. Barely selling the most consoles in the gaming division doesn't just automatically give it a win. They lost egregious amounts of money. And to say the Cell held it back a bit, is putting it extremely pedestrian like.
Oof. Didn't they say they stopped losing money on each console sold in 2010 and starting posting profits? I think generally they make most of their profit from digital/subs/licensing/ they even get a cut from physical sales?
The PS3 sold millions more than 360 every year. 360 had a 16 month lead on their launch, sold super cheap(but barebones) bundles to raise sales, and had millions extra sales from those not wanting to wait on the lengthy warranty to get them another 360. The PS3 can't get slapped when it never lost. Only caught up when it didn't matter? What kind of goal post move is that? When 360 stopped production, PS3 was a million ahead. And, remember. Sony reported sales in customer hands. Not retailers. So their lead was actually bigger.
Losing money is a fundamental element of progression and they succeeded by remaining market leaders two generations after the inception of the Cell Processor. Winning looks different from different vantage points; if their goal was to win the favor of everyone then perhaps they took an L but if their goal was to elevate beyond their missteps then there is an apparent victory beyond public appeal.
Learning from one's mistakes is key to becoming better in whatever capacity that you want to apply it to. Every person not performing on their level calling them losers are individuals falling victim to their own delusions. Are they still a cornerstone of the industry? If the answer is yes then what is your opinions worth?
You're really reaching hard to change the past, huh?
How was PS3 getting slapped all generation? How was it a colossal failure?
For one thing, the Xbox 360 launched almost a full year and a half before the PS3. So it had a massive head start. And the PS3 also launched at $600, while Xbox 360 was $500.
And once PS3 launched it still beat Xbox 360 in sales almost every single month, and then overtook them in total sales at the end of the generation.
How is that a failure? The only real failure was releasing the console at $600. But even at that price it still outsold the 360.
I think its hysterical that you can say a console that beat Xbox in sales on a consistent basis and beat it in total sales at the end of generation was a failure. And not just a failure. A "colossal failure" lmao. If that's what failing looks like then please tell me what Xbox 360 did that gen. Because let's also not forget that 360 had the Red Ring of Death, and more than a few people bought more than one console throughout the gen because of that.
"And the PS3 also launched at $600, while Xbox 360 was $500."
PS3 had the 20GB model for $500. The 360 was $300 for the no HD version and $400 with the HD.
Well it probably was the least commercially successful Sony console.
That your right. But with that it still sold more then the competitions best selling console being the 360
I wouldn't say it's a huge failure. It's sonys lowest selling Playstation but it still beats ms highest selling console
I loved the ps3. Brought us gems like Uncharted series, the last of us and metal gear solid 4. The introduction of blu ray was a game changer.
People seem to forget that every generation Sony takes a massive risk to innovate but the competition gets a free pass. Ask yourself why that is?
What free pass ?? Microsoft gets destroyed for pretty much everything they do good or bad. Nintendo took a huge risk with the Wii and that was a massive success and innovated the motion control period.
“ Sony takes a massive risk to innovate but the competition gets a free pass”
Making a more powerful version of your last console isn’t “massive risk taking”.
Nintendo are the only risk takers of the big 3.
Sometimes it works for them (see Wii, Switch) other times it completely tanks (see WiiU).
Again my argument about Sony taking risks each generation still stands.
1. PS1 brought CD's
2. PS2 brought DVDs and rumble
3. PS3 brought blu ray and the Cell architecture.
4. PS4 was a little less risky as they had a point to prove from the ps3's disaster launch. Still they took a chance with VR
5. PS5 brought haptic feedback controller
These are all things that shapped the industry.
Those aren't risks, those that you listed was a natural progression in technology that every company was jumping on board with. I mean, we even saw CD add ons for Sega, Atari and Turbo Grafix.
Taking a risk would have been Sony not going the CD route like Nintendo did with the N64. I would not even call that a risk either, I would call that a bad decision.
And it was Nintendo who first brought the rumble feature for games with their rumble pack add on for the N64.
I would also argue VR, but I guess that would be the closest to a risk Sony has ever done. But overall Sony has played it pretty safe with their gaming career.
like someone else said, sony tried something new and in the end developers weren't happy with the learning curve, sony changed course and fixed it with the PS4 and of course with the PS5 were its literally a developers dream
someday a 99% working emulator will come out for the PS3 from the Pc community, and probably end up on a future PS console
Imo, best generation Sony had for exclusives. Only downside was all 3rd party went to all consoles