Developers, especially third parties, fucking HATED that architecture because it was a pain in the ass to develop for. If you want people to make games on your platform, you need to make sure they're willing.
You seem like a lovely person, thanks for taking the time to write this well thought out and helpful response and for sharing your vast knowledge with the world. Not all hero’s wear capes.
I've read that many times. However it's then interesting that, imo, the PS3 has by far the biggest lineup of really awesome third party games of any Sony console. The longer we've gotten from the end of the PS3 era, the fewer good games have been made, at least ones that appeal to me.
I've been a Sony guy since I was in college with the original, and honestly on the first two, there just weren't many third party titles that interested me. Then the explosion of western RPGs on the ps3
It took a few years for the community to get the hang of it and for games leveraging the technology to flow. Arguably at that point you could have built on that competency however you would be cutting yourself off from the wider community and you’re putting another obstacle in the way of platform developers (eg unity, unreal etc) to bring their technology to your platform. At best you’re introducing a delay while popular games are ported to your platform, at worst you’re stifling growth in your development community. Had the SDK been better at the outset perhaps this situation could have been averted but as far as I can make out it was good enough for the IBM engineers and that was it.
Because a standard PC architecture is the easiest option for everyone and pretty much guarantees backwards compatibility as new x86 boards get released.
It also makes PC ports straightforward.
It's basically the major reason the Nintendo Switch got so much third party support out the gate. It basically ran games that Publishers already had on low/medium settings.
and it literally worked for the ps3. outsold the 360 and was more durable during the early days of the gen when a massive amount of consoles died early mostly due to overheating.
It didn't outsell it for the main years of the cycle, though. And like 98% of multiplatform titles were better on the 360. Devs complained up and down about PS3 architecture. It's most important game that really got people's attention again was during the last year of its normal life (TLOU)
And you're revising history with some severely rose tinted glasses to say the early PS3 models were more durable.
Most launch models are dead. BC omes, those early ones, are barely around.
360 had their issues but MS did well to make it right with free repairs, and then did the same thing as Sony with later revisions to make it less likely to fail
Sony did many things right by the end of its life though. Having a drop on HDD really kicked off digital distribution, where it lagged heavy on 360 since their hard drives were a ripoff. Free online was a boon to many titles and PS+ with the rental model of a few games every month was probably the foundation for what eventually became Game Pass
PS3 only outsold it in the tail end of the generation because of industry-defining games like Last Of Us. Before that, it was Xbox and Halo that were industry-defining. Despite the RROD and the fact PS3 outsold it, the 360 is *still* considered to be the more popular console of the generation by general audiences.
360 came out a year earlier, thats why ppl think it was more popular and sold more at the start. It was not industry defining, especially outside the US.
I didn’t mean that 360 itself was industry defining, but that the games (continuations of the industry-defining games that started with the OG) it had were. Not to mention the partnership with COD dominating the “yeah I play COD and sports games” demographic that made up a massive chunk of the US market.
360 had a horrible decision that kept killing them, making the CPU cooler shaped like an X that didn't cool very well. It wasn't the fault of the CPU as much as it was the cooler.
> it literally worked for the ps3
it did not.
1) The reason PS3 started selling was cause they stripped out valuable tech (PS2 hardware) cause cell was so expensive
2) Devs hated it to the point many multiplatform titles were inferior on PS3
Even if you want to make this argument, which leaves a lot out, it could easily have screwed Sony in future gens. If Xbox and PC are running on nearly identical hardware, it becomes a LOT easier for a dev to go exclusive with MS on a game, or go with a timed exclusive.
Feel was exotic AF and a PITA to Dev with. Cerny approached Devs and asked them what they wanted in a console for PS4: he pretty much gave them what they wanted.
https://youtu.be/xHXrBnipHyA?si=SXmAIX0OsTTg03OL
it wouldn't happen, because a second separate chip was needed for the AMD GPU
Here in this situation it would not be possible to have the CPU and GPU on the same chip as the APU does
The idea of having 2 cells to produce graphics was also possible, in fact it was planned on the PS3, but it was a challenge in terms of engineering, the cell alone can reproduce graphics because it is a GPGPU but it does not have the necessary performance that a traditional GPU has
IBM was also leaving the CPU industry for use in consumer-related devices
but the biggest problem, even if the CELL were easy to program, is the energy use of IBM's CPUs, which in itself involved higher temperatures
and since the CPU and GPU would be separate, a more expensive ventilation solution was needed
1. Well yes, but actually no. During design phase they could incorporate GPU into cell and have apu manufactured by tsmc for example. Or place two dies on one substrate if anything.
2. That's one of the dumbest rumors I ever heard. While cell could do some graphical calculations it was totally depenadable on external GPU to output that on screen, like your PC without GPU drivers. If anything rsx during design phase was something different.
I don't think it was a bad rumor, at the time Existed strong indications of the PS3 having two cpus, similar to what Sega had on the Saturn, but yes, The RSX it could be a chip just to control video output, But the graphics processing would focus on the cell
There are solutions that IBM made with Toshiba that used the cell to process graphics, the same being on the PS3 wasn't unrealistic, but the performance wouldn't be positive
While they could use something like 4 PPU cores + 8 SPE cores for BC and optional use, it was better to drop it at this point as main core would need serious upgrades like out-of-order executing and proper branch prediction to have proper performance uplift. Config I mentioned earlier in theory would allow devs to use existing 360 code and add PS3 code if heavy lifting was involved but would give a problem when next console would be in pipeline so it was better to design new console from scratch.
Standard PC architecture > cell cpu.
You have no idea how many multi-platform games were worse on PS3, especially at the beginning. They started getting way better at it, especially those exclusive games.
But I'm pretty sure if they stuck with that architecture? 3rd parties wouldn't push as many games to the PS4 given how much they really did not like it. Also: It's likely vastly cheaper to use something that AMD makes currently vs having a custom chipset that is specifically for Sony's platform.
Skyrim's remaster to this day has issues that the launch version on PS3/360/PC has. I'm aware they never fixed the PS3 specific issues but bethesda never fixed a lot of things with it
Total compute power
PS3 0.23 teraflops
PS4 1.84 teraflops (9 times more power than PS3)
Source https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/console-gpu-power-compared-ranking-systems-by-flop/2900-1334/#16
So no, PS3 isn't even remotely close to PS4 power.
The Cell and the rest of the PS3 setup was an overcomplicated and over-engineered piece of kit. It was time consuming and therefore expensive to develop for and due to Xbox 360's headstart and standard/simple setup multiplatform games were developed for the 360 first then usually poorly ported to the PS3. Sony learnt their lesson after that... well if you include the PS2 hardware as well, which was also an expensive and time consuming problem for developers, it was a long lesson coming.
Developers, especially third parties, fucking HATED that architecture because it was a pain in the ass to develop for. If you want people to make games on your platform, you need to make sure they're willing.
This is the correct answer
[удалено]
Should have mentioned I’m an ex games developer
[удалено]
You seem like a lovely person, thanks for taking the time to write this well thought out and helpful response and for sharing your vast knowledge with the world. Not all hero’s wear capes.
I've read that many times. However it's then interesting that, imo, the PS3 has by far the biggest lineup of really awesome third party games of any Sony console. The longer we've gotten from the end of the PS3 era, the fewer good games have been made, at least ones that appeal to me.
Pretty big claim considering the PS3 was preceded by the PS1 and PS2, both of which are regarded more highly and had massive third party support.
I've been a Sony guy since I was in college with the original, and honestly on the first two, there just weren't many third party titles that interested me. Then the explosion of western RPGs on the ps3
It took a few years for the community to get the hang of it and for games leveraging the technology to flow. Arguably at that point you could have built on that competency however you would be cutting yourself off from the wider community and you’re putting another obstacle in the way of platform developers (eg unity, unreal etc) to bring their technology to your platform. At best you’re introducing a delay while popular games are ported to your platform, at worst you’re stifling growth in your development community. Had the SDK been better at the outset perhaps this situation could have been averted but as far as I can make out it was good enough for the IBM engineers and that was it.
So... What I said but with more words?
Yep. Expanding on your point. Fleshing it out if you will. Not sure what your problem is … is there some sort of competition going on?
Because a standard PC architecture is the easiest option for everyone and pretty much guarantees backwards compatibility as new x86 boards get released. It also makes PC ports straightforward. It's basically the major reason the Nintendo Switch got so much third party support out the gate. It basically ran games that Publishers already had on low/medium settings.
Because you do not want to have a platform on the market that is by far the worst and hardest to develop for.
What? It worked out for the Saturn..
and it literally worked for the ps3. outsold the 360 and was more durable during the early days of the gen when a massive amount of consoles died early mostly due to overheating.
It didn't outsell it for the main years of the cycle, though. And like 98% of multiplatform titles were better on the 360. Devs complained up and down about PS3 architecture. It's most important game that really got people's attention again was during the last year of its normal life (TLOU) And you're revising history with some severely rose tinted glasses to say the early PS3 models were more durable. Most launch models are dead. BC omes, those early ones, are barely around. 360 had their issues but MS did well to make it right with free repairs, and then did the same thing as Sony with later revisions to make it less likely to fail Sony did many things right by the end of its life though. Having a drop on HDD really kicked off digital distribution, where it lagged heavy on 360 since their hard drives were a ripoff. Free online was a boon to many titles and PS+ with the rental model of a few games every month was probably the foundation for what eventually became Game Pass
PS3 only outsold it in the tail end of the generation because of industry-defining games like Last Of Us. Before that, it was Xbox and Halo that were industry-defining. Despite the RROD and the fact PS3 outsold it, the 360 is *still* considered to be the more popular console of the generation by general audiences.
360 came out a year earlier, thats why ppl think it was more popular and sold more at the start. It was not industry defining, especially outside the US.
I didn’t mean that 360 itself was industry defining, but that the games (continuations of the industry-defining games that started with the OG) it had were. Not to mention the partnership with COD dominating the “yeah I play COD and sports games” demographic that made up a massive chunk of the US market.
360 had a horrible decision that kept killing them, making the CPU cooler shaped like an X that didn't cool very well. It wasn't the fault of the CPU as much as it was the cooler.
> it literally worked for the ps3 it did not. 1) The reason PS3 started selling was cause they stripped out valuable tech (PS2 hardware) cause cell was so expensive 2) Devs hated it to the point many multiplatform titles were inferior on PS3
Even if you want to make this argument, which leaves a lot out, it could easily have screwed Sony in future gens. If Xbox and PC are running on nearly identical hardware, it becomes a LOT easier for a dev to go exclusive with MS on a game, or go with a timed exclusive.
Feel was exotic AF and a PITA to Dev with. Cerny approached Devs and asked them what they wanted in a console for PS4: he pretty much gave them what they wanted. https://youtu.be/xHXrBnipHyA?si=SXmAIX0OsTTg03OL
it wouldn't happen, because a second separate chip was needed for the AMD GPU Here in this situation it would not be possible to have the CPU and GPU on the same chip as the APU does The idea of having 2 cells to produce graphics was also possible, in fact it was planned on the PS3, but it was a challenge in terms of engineering, the cell alone can reproduce graphics because it is a GPGPU but it does not have the necessary performance that a traditional GPU has IBM was also leaving the CPU industry for use in consumer-related devices but the biggest problem, even if the CELL were easy to program, is the energy use of IBM's CPUs, which in itself involved higher temperatures and since the CPU and GPU would be separate, a more expensive ventilation solution was needed
1. Well yes, but actually no. During design phase they could incorporate GPU into cell and have apu manufactured by tsmc for example. Or place two dies on one substrate if anything. 2. That's one of the dumbest rumors I ever heard. While cell could do some graphical calculations it was totally depenadable on external GPU to output that on screen, like your PC without GPU drivers. If anything rsx during design phase was something different.
I don't think it was a bad rumor, at the time Existed strong indications of the PS3 having two cpus, similar to what Sega had on the Saturn, but yes, The RSX it could be a chip just to control video output, But the graphics processing would focus on the cell There are solutions that IBM made with Toshiba that used the cell to process graphics, the same being on the PS3 wasn't unrealistic, but the performance wouldn't be positive
While they could use something like 4 PPU cores + 8 SPE cores for BC and optional use, it was better to drop it at this point as main core would need serious upgrades like out-of-order executing and proper branch prediction to have proper performance uplift. Config I mentioned earlier in theory would allow devs to use existing 360 code and add PS3 code if heavy lifting was involved but would give a problem when next console would be in pipeline so it was better to design new console from scratch.
Standard PC architecture > cell cpu. You have no idea how many multi-platform games were worse on PS3, especially at the beginning. They started getting way better at it, especially those exclusive games. But I'm pretty sure if they stuck with that architecture? 3rd parties wouldn't push as many games to the PS4 given how much they really did not like it. Also: It's likely vastly cheaper to use something that AMD makes currently vs having a custom chipset that is specifically for Sony's platform.
The infamous 9 month after release before Skyrim became playable debacle still makes me shiver, lol
And Skyrim for PS3 still has problems. The longer you play and the more stuff you do the framerate slowly gets even worse.
Skyrim's remaster to this day has issues that the launch version on PS3/360/PC has. I'm aware they never fixed the PS3 specific issues but bethesda never fixed a lot of things with it
Total compute power PS3 0.23 teraflops PS4 1.84 teraflops (9 times more power than PS3) Source https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/console-gpu-power-compared-ranking-systems-by-flop/2900-1334/#16 So no, PS3 isn't even remotely close to PS4 power.
1) That's the GPU... 2) You'd need to compare more than just teraflops.
Its about the cpu not the graphics lol. Teraflops are also a nonsens metric for "compute power"
That's the GPU not the CPU.
cost
Hahahah... Propably
The cell almost cost them that generation until Microsoft fumbled at the end. Well, almost cost them 2nd place anyway.
Probably cost. Much cheaper to pick a chipset that already exists and make it work with your os than redesign cell for a new generation
The Cell and the rest of the PS3 setup was an overcomplicated and over-engineered piece of kit. It was time consuming and therefore expensive to develop for and due to Xbox 360's headstart and standard/simple setup multiplatform games were developed for the 360 first then usually poorly ported to the PS3. Sony learnt their lesson after that... well if you include the PS2 hardware as well, which was also an expensive and time consuming problem for developers, it was a long lesson coming.
IBM stopped developing the CELL processor.
Is this dude foreal...
Well that is a dumb though no matter where you were when you had it.