PS3 Q&A Thread

[HaemishM]

I didn't think it was possible to make PS2 games look shittier. Nice job, Sony.

Yeah, they do a good job of uglying the fuck out of PS2 games.

I have to laugh, because all along Sony kept saying that the PS3 would be PS2-compatible because there was a mini-PS2 chip on the board. I guess they forget the part with AA on it.

[geldonyetich]

Why couldn't they do for PS2 games what Bleem was in the process of doing?  I could actually see sharp, drawn faces on the 3D characters in Chrono Chross that were far too blurry to make out when the PS2 rendered it.    Now I'm hearing that the PS3 does an even worse job?  Bah!

[Velorath]

Looks like the PS3 just lost another exclusive.  Virtua Fighter 5 is coming to the 360 next year

[Sairon]

Why couldn't they do for PS2 games what Bleem was in the process of doing?  I could actually see sharp, drawn faces on the 3D characters in Chrono Chross that were far too blurry to make out when the PS2 rendered it.    Now I'm hearing that the PS3 does an even worse job?  Bah!

Since my PS2 broke down I'm using ePSXe to play my PSX games on the computer, it's almost flawless, only very minor issues. The added benefit is that there's a lot of filters and other stuff to enhance the image quality. Sure, they can't remedy the low poly count, but runing at 1600 x 1200 with full AA and various other things makes it look heaps better than on the original machine.

[stray]

I can't get any Hi-Def F13 action. Damn.

The browser looks like shit in 1080i. Lol.

Looks like shit in 720p too.

Excuse me if someone touched on this (somewhat) pointless issue already. It's my only complaint so far. 

[schild]

Browser looks fine on my TV (LCD).

[stray]

Strange. What size is it? Mine's 32" (LCD).

[Triforcer]

Anecdotal evidence ftl- I still don't see a Wii in any store I'm in, but Walmart/Gamestop/etc. has multiple PS3s lying around.  I guess neither system has an incredible launch lineup, so all other things being equal the price seems to be controlling. 

[schild]

Strange. What size is it? Mine's 32" (LCD).

37".

People are buying the Wii when it comes in because it's cheap. That and Sony resolved the shortage issue weeks ago.

[stray]

It's not so bad in 720p, I guess. Depending on the site.

1080i is really tiny though. Maybe browsing at that setting just isn't a good idea for a TV this size.

Everything else is great though.

[Velorath]

Anecdotal evidence ftl- I still don't see a Wii in any store I'm in, but Walmart/Gamestop/etc. has multiple PS3s lying around.  I guess neither system has an incredible launch lineup, so all other things being equal the price seems to be controlling. 

Hell, Bestbuy.com has some PS3's in stock right now.  Some of them aren't even being sold as bundles.  Not a Wii to be found though.

[schild]

This out of the gates shit doesn't matter. At all. The Cube was the little system that could also. It's all about game support and I guarantee with Square and Sony's First Party offerings, the PS3 will blow the Wii away within a couple years unless there's some sort of mass uprising WITHIN Sony (not likely). Hell, SCEA/J's offerings have been as good if not better than Nintendo's in the last generation (God of War and Shadow of the Colossus and ICO vs.... Mario Sunshine, Smash Bros. and Windwaker?). Please. I expect amateur sites to use that sort of anecdotal bullshit to construct a market leader. Nintendo didn't even have the money to R&D a full system this go round, hence the new controller. The Wii is nothing but a red herring that managed to dupe a whole lot of people. We're looking at 3-4 games a year from Nintendo that may be worth purchasing. If that. Probably more like 2-3. The 360 has twice the attach rate of that already for every system.

Yes, the Wii has planted itself firmly enough to be the second or third system everyone owns. But it's nothing but a generation filler for Nintendo while they figure out how to really compete. In two years it'll be collecting as much dust as the Gamecube did for people halfway through the past generation.

That said, the DS is wrecking the PSP - though because of the advancements in the hacking community - the PSP is, imo, the best handheld out there. Due partly to Sony making such a fucking kickass emulator for PS1 games. The DS however gets DQ9. Which means the PS3 and the Wii won't. DQ9 would have put a Wii in every home in Japan. Final Fantasy XIII will put a PS3 in every home in Japan. With 4 games attached to it. This generation will be fought and won by the 360 (specifically Europe and America with XBL/Halo 3&4 and Gears 1&2), the PS3 in Japan, and the DS in every major country around the world besides maybe Spain (where the PSP is a MONSTER). The PS3 and 360 due to being so close on the technology side will become the new Sega & Nintendo of the late 80s/early 90s. Same as it ever was.

I admit, right now the 360 is the most compelling system. The Wii is still - despite my growing hate - more compelling than the PS3 as a gaming system. But who am I fucking kidding. Some N1 titles will drop on the PS3, it'll have awesome games for download, it plays Blu-Ray, and Square - despite what they say - is still backing them STRONG. The PS3 will blow past the Wii WHILE people are still hating on the PS3. It's just the way of the world. The Wii was awesome at winning the heart of the people though. And people will remember it for that. It was the system that rich people and poor people both had to find and both could afford. At a launch! Yeeee haaaaa! That's some exciting fucking press. Now get the fuck over it and realize you'll just be playing the exact same shit you played on the Cube with new levels and a new barrier to entry - the Wiimote.

Edit: Something, from some third party, however - like RE4 - will come along and make the Wii worth every penny. I've got my money on Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, because it's an easy favorite. But my heart wants to say Sadness may be that app. Nintendo sure as shit won't be making That Game though.

[Riggswolfe]

My only comment to Schild's post above is that I still wouldn't put the Blu-Ray as an advantage for the PS3. Noone I know has adopted a next-gen DvD format yet and I don't think the PS3 is going to have as much an impact on it as people thought/hoped. Even if I bought a PS3, I'd still hesitate to buy any Blu-Ray DvDs because my gut tells me they're going to lose the format war.

[Roac]

The PS3 may wind up "winning" the console war, whether win be by net profit or units sold.  However, at the moment it is not, and there isn't much reason to think it will.  The main issue is one of cross-platform games; publishers like it because it makes a wider userbase to market to.  This will also be one of the main pitfalls for Nintendo.  Because of their relatively weak hardware, it remains to be seen how many titles can be ported to that platform without significant loss.  Graphics downgrade to 480 isn't much of a loss (Wii buyers know it lacks HD going in), but the potential for loss of draw distance, level size, number of objects, etc are potential reasons why a port may not occur.  Worse, publishers may decide it's unimportant and that two platforms are enough.

However, it is much more difficult to target the PS3 only.  Not only does it have a small marketshare at the moment and short term future, making full use of it requires HD content.  This, in turn, requires higher content costs, but they are costs that can only be recouped on this one console.  You can't port this content to even the 360, because it lacks an HD-DVD for gaming.  I assume that content can be downgraded in quality relatively cheaply, but that doesn't skirt the point that you're not really regaining your investment in the higher quality content.

What the 360 has going for it is an incredibly strong online model.  Live offers a lot for gamers who are into multiplay, and everything 360 is minimally attached to it.  The PS3 has that too, but it's an afterthought and not nearly as mature.  What this caters to is the "serious" gamer.  Good graphics, VERY mature games, online multiplay.  This is the gamer's box.  The weakness here is that the hardcore/male tween market is fickle and niche.  There is serious money to be made, but it's very tough to do well, and they didn't last go round. 

What the Wii has going for it is ease of use, cost, and family/party oriented games.  Despite what schild says, the Wiimote is not a barrier to entry; it is the key to entry.  Every party (family or friend) I've been to since I've gotten my Wii has included me bringing it in tow.  Everyone who's tried it, even those who don't care for games, has enjoyed it and found the control intuitive and fun.  The clincher is whether Nintendo can get more mature games for their platform which go beyond just the party set.  They already have Zelda and a few ports, but they need more.  Stuff is in the works, including both first and third party games, but they aren't to be delivered for a bit.

What the PS2 had (or has - it's still selling well) was a HUGE game portfolio.  Everything but exclusives had a PS2 port, and even that exception was sometimes broken (RE4).  The PS2 rocketed up because the PS1 had a good library, and everyone knew it was going to carry forward.  Nintendo screwed the pooch with the N64, and nothing about the GC made people think it would fare much better.  And Sega? Heh.  Sony won by default.  What they failed to do was innovate; both Microsoft and Nintendo have worked at being innovative.  Sony decided to rest on their laurels and play it safe.  They are paying dearly for that mistake.

What the PS3 has going for it is graphics.  And... well, no, that's it.  It has a bigger gpeen than anyone else.  Blu-Ray storage just augments that point.  There are Blu-Ray DVDs, but that won't do very much for Sony unless that format wins the format war.  They are hoping that the PS3 will help them win, and it may, but to be much help they have to move consoles - which they're not doing.  Worse, what happens out of the gate is important because it sets reputation, which is something we've seen with MMOGs.  It's very hard to overcome a bad reputation, and the rep that the PS3 has is that it's overpriced bloat that has features few people want.

Last thing. This isn't about PS3 "hate".  I really don't get people who talk about hate for any of the systems, whether it's growing or pre-existant.  Before the Wii I owned a PS2 and GC, of which I played the PS2 more.  I refused to buy an Xbox because I disliked the notion of paying for Live.  I'm still buying PS2 games, and even bought a PS2 for someone for Christmas.  This generation, I have a Wii (on release day, first console I've done that ever) and wouldn't mind getting a 360.  That might happen Christmas '07, but I don't see ever getting a PS3.  I may not get a 360, but if I do it'll have 90% of what I'd want from a PS3 and so couldn't justify the cost of it.  Some people do.  Good for them.  They're just in a minority.

[Sairon]

What they failed to do was innovate; both Microsoft and Nintendo have worked at being innovative.  Sony decided to rest on their laurels and play it safe.  They are paying dearly for that mistake.

What innovation are you referring to in Microsofts case?

[Strazos]

A dedicated, consolidated online platform.

[Yegolev]

We should put some bets on this, too.

[HaemishM]

As Roac said, the Wiimote is not a barrier to entry, it's a key. It makes video games palatable to people who might not otherwise play (or buy) a video game. To hardcore gamers, it's an insult or something, because it's not their way and they don't want to get used to it. To anyone else who hates fucking controllers with all their buttons and triggers and shoulders and stuff. Controllers like that really are intimidating to those people with little to no lifelong experience with games. The Wiimote is not, especially in games like Wii Sports with such intuitive controls.

The trick will be converting those people from players at someone else's house to buyers. Oh, and getting out more games. Lots and lots of games. With development costs of a Wii game being about 1/4 to 1/2 of a PS3 game, and with an install base of abotu 2x or 3x that of the PS3, I'm thinking a lot of 3rd party developers would be retarded not to go after those numbers.

But it isn't like game developers have lacked retardation over the years, so I could be totally wrong.

[MrHat]

I want them to release the WiiMote programming module for the pc so we can map stuff to it.  I don't see why they're not.

[HaemishM]

Someone's already found a way to use the Wiimote as a PC mouse substitute.

[Sairon]

The trick will be converting those people from players at someone else's house to buyers. Oh, and getting out more games. Lots and lots of games. With development costs of a Wii game being about 1/4 to 1/2 of a PS3 game, and with an install base of abotu 2x or 3x that of the PS3, I'm thinking a lot of 3rd party developers would be retarded not to go after those numbers.

Where have you heard development costs 1/4 to 1/2 for that of a PS3 game? Also, I hope that comparsion is between equally AAA titles of the same type, with just the technical limitations seperated.

A dedicated, consolidated online platform.

Didn't that already happen the last generation with xbox though?

[Roac]

Where have you heard development costs 1/4 to 1/2 for that of a PS3 game?

THQ.

Edit:  Epic thinks so too

Edit: Squeenix seems to think so too.

[schild]

Yep. Depending what you're doing and how efficient you are, PS3 can be EXPENSIVO. But then, some of the smallest companies in Japan are building stuff on the PS3 and 360. So take that shit with a grain of salt. THQ sucks anyway.

[Roac]

Aside from who thinks what, the content of making hidef stuff for the PS3 as well as working in that architecture (reference a couple dozen devs talking about how they have yet to untap its power - ie, it's complicated) is costly.  The consensus is that the Wii is very close to the GC, and tools from one can mostly be ported.  Also, no hidef because you can't use it.  Basically the same for the 360 on that point only because of lack of HD-DVD. 

So here's the catch.  If you're going to sink an extra $10m into development of a title for the PS3, you have to be relatively certain that you're going to make enough sales to cover that.  If a dev shop gets 50% of the sticker price (heh), that translates to just over 300k units needing to sell just to break even on a $10m difference, which is roughly what's been quoted for Red Steel.  There is some doubt as to how many third party devs are going to do anything but ports to the PS3.  Given that the 360 has a nice development toolset, a large installed base, and weaker hardware, any "high end" games may very well target a 360/PS3 mix, with 360 being their standard.

[HaemishM]

The figure I've heard is that a AAA PS3 title would have to sell 500k copies to break even.

[Trippy]

Also, no hidef because you can't use it.  Basically the same for the 360 on that point only because of lack of HD-DVD. 

You are confusing storage formats with output formats. MS mandates 360 games output 720p -- that's HD.

[Roac]

Also, no hidef because you can't use it.  Basically the same for the 360 on that point only because of lack of HD-DVD. 

You are confusing storage formats with output formats. MS mandates 360 games output 720p -- that's HD.

No I'm not, but I may not have been clear.  The "can't use it" is because Wii doesn't support hidef.  The 360 does, but running hidef often implies high quality content, which is the premise behind the need for Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD.  If you lack dozens of gigs of space to store crap on, then you're rendering low[er] quality content in hidef.  Yey team. 

[Sairon]

I'm not saying any of those facts are wrong, because I've never deved for either of the consoles. But I can't see how it's such a large diffrence, I mean one article states it can be as much as 5 to 1. Afaik hi def only means higher resolution, I can't belive that if you have 4x as many pixels it will take 4x as much time, it should only be telling the console "hey, lets use this resoultion instead". I can clearly understand that there's a huge step to take in order to create the additional abstraction layer required for the exotic architecture. If numbers haven't changed though, then actually rolling the entire engine is only a small part of the budget compared to content generation and gameplay coding, which shouldn't be changing at all. The demand for "more shit" in the games should be the same for all consoles.

[stray]

Also, no hidef because you can't use it.  Basically the same for the 360 on that point only because of lack of HD-DVD. 

You are confusing storage formats with output formats. MS mandates 360 games output 720p -- that's HD.

No I'm not, but I may not have been clear.  The "can't use it" is because Wii doesn't support hidef.  The 360 does, but running hidef often implies high quality content, which is the premise behind the need for Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD.  If you lack dozens of gigs of space to store crap on, then you're rendering low[er] quality content in hidef.  Yey team. 

Yeah, something like that could set them back later.

On the sidenote, the same goes for having a base model without a hard drive. Developers have to develop for that primarily, and not their 20 gig version.

[Trippy]

Also, no hidef because you can't use it.  Basically the same for the 360 on that point only because of lack of HD-DVD. 

You are confusing storage formats with output formats. MS mandates 360 games output 720p -- that's HD.

No I'm not, but I may not have been clear.  The "can't use it" is because Wii doesn't support hidef.  The 360 does, but running hidef often implies high quality content, which is the premise behind the need for Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD.  If you lack dozens of gigs of space to store crap on, then you're rendering low[er] quality content in hidef.  Yey team. 

RAM, or the lack thereof, puts a limit on the amount of super high resolution textures you can use at any given time so not having blue laser storage is not a significant disadvantage yet. It is a problem if you want to include lots of HD prerendered video in the game. As for the cost part, making HD content is not more expensive than non-HD content. These days virtually all the main artwork for a AAA title starts at super high resolution/super high polygon counts and gets downsampled/reduced to fit the appropriate storage and format constraints. In other words they are already starting with much higher quality source material than "HD" quality even if they are developing for something like a PS2.

For example, go here:

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

and scroll down to the bottom to the part on normal map generation. Modellers/character designers/level designers create their game models at whatever upper limit their modeling programs allow and then they get converted into low(er) polygon versions and possibly tweaked as needed. The same applies to textures. They are scanned in from photographs, painted/drawn, or generated programmatically at high resolutions/high detail and then downsampled to fit whatever size and tiling constraints as needed.

In the good old days people did actually paint each individual pixel in the artwork with a bitmap editor and model each individual polygon. That generally doesn't happen anymore on these big budget console titles.

[HaemishM]

I'm not saying any of those facts are wrong, because I've never deved for either of the consoles. But I can't see how it's such a large diffrence, I mean one article states it can be as much as 5 to 1. Afaik hi def only means higher resolution, I can't belive that if you have 4x as many pixels it will take 4x as much time, it should only be telling the console "hey, lets use this resoultion instead". I can clearly understand that there's a huge step to take in order to create the additional abstraction layer required for the exotic architecture. If numbers haven't changed though, then actually rolling the entire engine is only a small part of the budget compared to content generation and gameplay coding, which shouldn't be changing at all. The demand for "more shit" in the games should be the same for all consoles.

The PS3 and the 360 need more art assets than a Wii game, because their models are higher-res, more polygons, etc. Art is the most expensive part of developing a AAA title, not because it's harder than programming, but because throwing more artists at a problem isn't going to help nearly as much as throwing more programmers or QA guys at a problem in their arena. Hi-def art assets are just more time-consuming to make and to render, and thus are more expensive. The PS3 has the additional problem of having an entirely new type of architecture (multi-core) to program for, which means devs have to learn how to use it and training on the job is expensive. Those two combined make the PS3 such a drastically more expensive proposition.

With Wii games, the only thing to learn is how to program for the Wiimote and other peripherals. The CPU and GPU are mostly GameCube upgrades, and devs who have developed for the Cube have already got the dev tools investment and knowledge investment paid for.

EDIT: Also don't forget that with the PS3 and 360, instead of having to develop for one resolution like the Wii (480i or p won't matter much), you have to developr for what... 4? 5? 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1080i, and 720i? So all your art assets have to scale down to that and be stored on a disc.

Blu-Ray isn't going to be a huge advantage over the 360 in games, because in most cases, you can just have a game span multiple discs. It's a pain in the ass, but not a game killer for most.

[Sairon]

The PS3 and the 360 need more art assets than a Wii game, because their models are higher-res, more polygons, etc. Art is the most expensive part of developing a AAA title, not because it's harder than programming, but because throwing more artists at a problem isn't going to help nearly as much as throwing more programmers or QA guys at a problem in their arena. Hi-def art assets are just more time-consuming to make and to render, and thus are more expensive. The PS3 has the additional problem of having an entirely new type of architecture (multi-core) to program for, which means devs have to learn how to use it and training on the job is expensive. Those two combined make the PS3 such a drastically more expensive proposition.

With Wii games, the only thing to learn is how to program for the Wiimote and other peripherals. The CPU and GPU are mostly GameCube upgrades, and devs who have developed for the Cube have already got the dev tools investment and knowledge investment paid for.

EDIT: Also don't forget that with the PS3 and 360, instead of having to develop for one resolution like the Wii (480i or p won't matter much), you have to developr for what... 4? 5? 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1080i, and 720i? So all your art assets have to scale down to that and be stored on a disc.

Blu-Ray isn't going to be a huge advantage over the 360 in games, because in most cases, you can just have a game span multiple discs. It's a pain in the ass, but not a game killer for most.

There's another program here at my school for graphics, and as Trippy said, they do an extremely high poly model once and then just let program generate normal maps and scale them down. If you let the UI just be a textured quad that's in front of the camera at all times, and then simply blit windows etc to it. if you then use some filtering on that texture you should be able to get a resolution independent UI. The 3D world doesn't really get affected by the resolution at all. If the filter is good you shouldn't get any font issues and missing pixels. Computer games have been hi def for a very long time and they usually have to deal with a heck of a lot more resolutions.

[HaemishM]

Computer games have been hi def for a very long time and they usually have to deal with a heck of a lot more resolutions.

These aren't computer games. Console manufacturers who haven't done PC games likely have not dealt with these issues before the Hi-Def era.

[squirrel]

Also, no hidef because you can't use it.  Basically the same for the 360 on that point only because of lack of HD-DVD. 

You are confusing storage formats with output formats. MS mandates 360 games output 720p -- that's HD.

No I'm not, but I may not have been clear.  The "can't use it" is because Wii doesn't support hidef.  The 360 does, but running hidef often implies high quality content, which is the premise behind the need for Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD.  If you lack dozens of gigs of space to store crap on, then you're rendering low[er] quality content in hidef.  Yey team. 

You should probably be aware then that the PS3 has less available memory to manage these "HIDEF" textures in and has a weaker GPU (by a significant margin) than the 360. The PS3 cell architecture will be good at things like AI and physics - although it's really difficult to use Cell with out of order instruction, part of the thing that developers are having to relearn with the PS3. Graphically it is the inferior system to the 360 UBAH 1080P output notwithstanding. (Irrelevant to games, important to bluray.) So all that extra storage is pretty much useless from a gaming p.o.v. Makes for good marketing copywriting though. Yay consumer education.

This AVS thread and the linked articles have some excellent information. On the graphics front the fact that the PS3 has 256MB dedicated to the GPU and 256MB dedicated to the PPE is actually inferior in many ways to the 512MB unified memory of the 360. Further the 360's GPU is ATI's next gen r600 piece which is by all measures superior in almost every way to the PS3's Nvidia part - essentially a 7800GTX.

But yeah. Those extra gigs will make all the difference. 

[Trippy]

Computer games have been hi def for a very long time and they usually have to deal with a heck of a lot more resolutions.

These aren't computer games. Console manufacturers who haven't done PC games likely have not dealt with these issues before the Hi-Def era.

It is true that developers of console games that aren't 3D or have stylized-3D graphics (e.g. cell shaded textures) haven't had to worry about a lot of this sort of stuff, though even in the 2D world they already are starting from higher resolution source material like for things like painted background -- i.e. the artists certainly aren't trying to paint the backgrounds at 640 x 480 resolution.

However any console 3D game that has gone with a more realistic look, especially if it has any sort of non in-game engine prerendered video, has been adopting the techniques I described, and some like Square have been doing it a really long time (since at least FF VII). That is how they were able to put together the PS3 tech demo that showed it rendering the FF VII "cinematic" sets in (more or less) real time -- they had already built those highly-detailed sets back then to render the cinematic videos from.

Edit: fixed double quote