Insomniac: PS3 won't be maxed out for 2-3 years

Arnon - 72 days 13 hours ago

There's absolutely no way you're being serious rofl. The 10 year life cycle is there to show that Sony will support the product long after the next one has been released.

"We're not going to release any more products until this 10 year life cycle is done! We don't want anymore publicity or money, and ultimately want our competition to run us dry when they constantly release new technology!"

I'll give it about a year or two before it's maxed out, and honestly, this is a very level-headed look on it. Quit thinking the PS3 is some sort of godsend of technology. Just because the architecture of the PS3 is asymmetric, doesn't mean it was crafted by aliens. If the PC's already outdoing it, how do they expect to keep up in 10 years time with the same product while competing against two other companies, who will OBVIOUSLY release another console, not to mention of course, the PC.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

waltercross - 72 days 11 hours ago

I Think the PS3 Will be maxed out in about 2 years, by then
many other Developers will understand how to work with
the PS3.

Once this happens, Enjoy allot of Good upcoming games because
they will be coming.

But It's not just about maxing the PS3 out, It's Art direction,
gameplay, design etc that can make or break a game.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

lve2playbball - 72 days 3 hours ago

you don't know it, you're an idiot...Your adoration of the PS3 is cute, but because you adore doesn't mean you know ANYTHING about hardware (or even writing code for games). Like I said before, you will not see much of an improvement over UC2 & KZ2...You will see little things, but NOTHING major. People on here are funny, they act like they know everything about the PS3, like it's gonna save the world or something. I love my PS3 but I am not in denial about where it will go from here.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Bereaver - 72 days 18 hours ago

True that, but a good engine can fix all of that.

I mean hell, I don't like the way Carmack talked crap before about him still being the "it" person, but I can agree with him on something. An engine can make or break a game.

I mean..... my computer has more power, more ram, more vram than a psp but.... can computers run psp games at 100%? Nope, it's all about the architecture and the engine that surrounds it, so to speak.

Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report

DeathroW22 - 72 days 18 hours ago

But the funny thing is, the AA issues don't seem to be there on first party games. So the hardware clearly isn't as limiting as what some third party developers are saying.

I don't think the GPU is an issue really either, for the reason i stated above - look at what the first parties can do, the power is there if you know how to use it.

As for the RAM, i think it could of done with more system RAM, not really for games but for the operating system and features. Look at the in-game XMB when it first came out, it was slow and laggy due to memory limitations but as firmware updates have been released they have been slowly reducing the memory footprint of the OS and OS level features which means it has been improved in efficiency.

So yeah, i think RAM was one issue - in the general features side of things, not so much the games side, though it would of helped the third parties more.

(I didn't hit your disagree button, i don't do that)

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

raztad - 72 days 17 hours ago

The cell has 256M of SHARABLE hyperfast XDR ram (3.2ghz)

The dedicated VRAM is 256M (700MHz) but the RSX can freely use the main system memory.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

LCF - 72 days 17 hours ago

1st off dont be fooled by wiki, those specs are speculate only and not offical specs released by Sony or Nvidia. The RSX is a CUSTOM-BUILT GPU with the Cell in mind. I mean come on the RSX has HDMI 1.3a support. What other GPU on the market had native HDMI when it was released?

2nd you need to think of the Cell as a GPU. The Cell is made for rendering and is being used in the medical field for HD medical rendering.

3rd the Cell works in tandem with the RSX, you cant think of them separate, its not like PC or the X360 which rely heavy on their GPUs. In the PS3 it's Cell/RSX doing the rendering with the Cell doing bulk of the work.

2-3 years...I expected this much. 1st-3rd generation games will look vastly different then 6th-7th generation games on the PS3. I can't say the same for the X360, its tapped out. Normal for a 5 year console.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

jerethdagryphon - 72 days 13 hours ago

i will agree with you, had sony put 512 of gdr2/3 ram and kept he 256 xdr it would have been an improvment, but remember rsx can steel the stuipidly fast xdr ram if it needs to so clever coders use both rams at different times
upgraded cell ram and rsx2=ps4 i hope then we would see a console shooting forward rapidly out of the starting box

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

JBaby343 - 72 days 12 hours ago

Any system benefits from more RAM. But I think the games show it is sufficient to produce amazing things and so is the GPU. The PS3 would produce even more amazing things just by upgrading the RAM and GPU but at present they are kicking out very high quality products.

Can't wait to see what the PS4 has in store for us.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Consoldtobots - 72 days 11 hours ago

ah but you see, thats what separates the men from the boy developers.
@3.2ghz 256mb of XDR ram can do the work of over 2GB of the vram. You just have to know how to setup your code to take advantage of the speed.
It's more involved than just banging out lines of code and then just clicking "compile". You have to know EXACTLY what every single one of those bytes is doing at any given time. The level of complexity in parallel coding on the cell is exponential.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

lve2playbball - 72 days 10 hours ago

feral gamer has it right, the gpu is the limiting factor... It doesn't matter that it is a "custom built chip made for the PS3" LCF, it is a 7th generation nvidia chip. It is no better than my 7800gtx. The ignorance of some PS3 fanboys kills me.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

oobob - 72 days 8 hours ago

Who is disagreeing with this guy? They kept armor off the horse in ps3 oblivion because of the ram limitations.

Another big problem are the in order execution cores. On pcs, the processor determines the order in which to execute instructions to optimize the program. The consoles (ps3 or xbox or wii) don't and execute them in the order received, putting the task of optimizing them on the developers. It's complicated to optimize code in a parallel processing environment like the cell and this makes it even more difficult. There are too many loops and complexly nested control structures in a modern program (let alone a game) for the developers to perfectly optimize, and as they improve you'll naturally see performance increase. But it does show you the limitations of the hardware.

"ah but you see, thats what separates the men from the boy developers.
...You have to know EXACTLY what every single one of those bytes is doing at any given time. The level of complexity in parallel coding on the cell is exponential."

This entire line of thinking is stupid. Men program in assembly when they have the time and resources, but unless you want to spend months doing something that could be finished a fraction of the time you're gonna use C/C++.

This only seperates the rich or sony backed developers from the poor. Honestly dude when you consider the already parallel architecture and in order execution cores that's absurdly time consuming and difficult. It takes an enormous amount of money and that's why Sony backed games look so good - the devs have cash from Sony that allows them to turn a profit on that level of investment.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

Feral Gamer - 72 days 19 hours ago

I'm just saying that the GPU and VRAM are the weakest links on the PS3. There's nothing wrong with the PS3, I'm just saying they could've taken it further.

Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report

Pennywise - 72 days 19 hours ago

Yeah feral, further into a later release. Further into my wallet for my hard earned cash. Further into all of the 360s fans arsenal for slander on the PS3. How much further did Sony need to go... tell me...

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

Hellsvacancy - 72 days 19 hours ago

Hasnt the 360 got more Ram then the Ps3? doesnt seem 2do the 360 any favors

Agree(6) | Disagree(5) | Report

forcefullpower - 72 days 19 hours ago

You really need to understand how the RSX works with the cell before spurting crap about 256mb graphics.

You do know that the cell can do the gpu video calculation aswell as the gpu. This requires devs to under how to program for the console.

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

DeathroW22 - 72 days 18 hours ago

Hellsvacancy, they both have the same amount of memory but they're not used in the same way and are not the same type.

The XBOX 360 has a unified system of 512MB of GDDR3 memory @ 700MHz

The PS3 splits up its memory:
256MB of XDR system memory @ 3.2GHz (3200MHz)
256MB of GDDR3 video memory @ 700MHz

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

Qui-Gon Jim - 72 days 17 hours ago

He isn't being nasty, he is discussing civilly. If you think he's wrong, say why, but please return the courtesy he has shown here.

I don't know anything about this stuff, but i have heard the same elsewhere. However, when i look out over Nepal from the hotel rooftop in UC2 and see that much of that view is rendered in 3d, not as a static 2d image, i can't help but think that what the PS3 has is doing pretty well for it.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

TotalPS3Fanboy - 72 days 15 hours ago

Sure, Sony could have put 4 cells and 4 video cards along with 8 gigs of memory into the PS3, but really, at what cost? No one will pay that price tag, even if it's the most powerful sh*t in the world.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

zootang - 72 days 19 hours ago

That was funny! I feel like putting my 60gb away and buying a slim.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Venatus-Deus - 72 days 18 hours ago

Happened to me during the final boss fight in U2. Green light, yellow light and then a flashing red. Gutted.

Next day Sony said they would send me a new 60gb refurb for £120 (no questions asked ). Not bad, however I sold it on ebay for £85 and got a slim and a free game on Amazon for £237. I’m now on my 3rd Ps3 because the one I just sold was also a refurb from six months after lunch day release in UK. The first problem was with BR player.

Ylod does exist and it’s bigger than Sony will admit. Just look at ebay.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

04soldier - 72 days 11 hours ago

My backwards comp 80gb has been to Laredo twice.. One due to its BR then the YLOD.

When I get it back Im selling it for a SLIM. & Im going to emphasize its backwards compatibility so I can get the most $$$ out of it...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

DARK WITNESS - 72 days 18 hours ago

that has to be one of the daftest things I have read all day..

If the games coming out " NOW " already look better then just about anything else on any other system, does that not already justify the price and time already spent in development.

if the games completely max out the system in the first year or two then we would need a new system every 2 or 3 years.

The fact that it may take 6 years to max the system out does not mean that whats out now is not already cutting edge and can keep the gamers happy for the next few years.

at least we know we will see a marked improvement year on year in the quality of the games as the devs find new ways to get the best out of the system.

Anyway, I for one am glad they will take there time maxing out the system it gives me a lot to look forward to cos I am always wondering what they will do next with the system. better then some other system that has shown no marked improvement in the last year or two.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

nycredude - 72 days 18 hours ago

@Rocco

So I guess you are perfectly happy with your 360 already pumping the best graphics it ever will with Gears 2 right? Having a console that gets maxed out in 2 years and no improvement on graphics and gameplay for the remaining life of the console is a good idea now. /s

Serious if you are going to bash make sure you know what the hell you are talking about, or at the very least make sure you make some sense.

you know the saying "It's better to be quiet and though a fool, than open your mouth and take away all doubts".

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

Qui-Gon Jim - 72 days 17 hours ago

By that logic, Microsoft should not have been charging $50/year for Live up to now, because it had less features before.

I, for one, WANT a system that continues to impress me as time goes on. Just look at PS3 owners right now. We have the incredible Uncharted 2, but are still looking forward to Heavy Rain, God of War III, Gran Turismo 5, The Last Guardian, etc. because of gameplay and impressive graphics. If things were "maxed out" right away, every game this gen would look like the first Gears of War. That game was darn impressive when it came out, but if everything still looked like that, the industry would stagnate.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

TotalPS3Fanboy - 72 days 15 hours ago

But we're not waiting. We already got the best right now. And years from now, it'll be even better than best.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

RussDeBuss - 72 days 13 hours ago

i'd be more annoyed paying big money for a pc gpu and get good graphics now, but knowing they will never get any better, and in 2 yrs time all the new games coming out won't look as good on my machine as they do in all the promo shots cos they are made with the latest hardware

with my ps3 though i know that my games will keep getting better looking, and it will look as good on my machine as the devs intended, and my one off payment of £425 will definatly give me more joy and last me longer than if i had got a graphics card at the same price at the time i got my ps3

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

XsteveJ - 72 days 9 hours ago

Epic Face Palm...

That is one of the most illogical comments I've seen on here, and that's saying something...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

darkride66 - 72 days 18 hours ago

-
Seriously, you seem confused. Let me refresh your memory. Ghostbusters was the game where the developer claimed that the 360 was holding them back, and it certainly looks like it did.

Hope that cleared up your confusion.

Agree(6) | Disagree(5) | Report

TotalPS3Fanboy - 72 days 15 hours ago

"Ghostbusters had already maxed out the ps3?"

That usually only happen when you listen to Microsoft.

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

commodore64 - 72 days 12 hours ago

No, old man, it is you who is confused.
Ghostbusters looks better on the 360, as we all know.

In fact, out of the PC, 360 and PS3... Ghostbusters ps3 is the lowest common denominator, undeniably.

I just wonder how good the 360 version could have been had it not been for the fact the developer was forced to cater for this ps3 lowest common denominator.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

waltercross - 72 days 11 hours ago

LOL Ghostbusters, Really? Yes the PS3 Version
does look Crappy, to bad a Capable Developer didn't
develope the game.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

04soldier - 72 days 10 hours ago

You bring a multiplat game into this discussion, what a tool.U2 and KZ2 strike victory by unanimous decision when it comes to exclusive quality between the ps3 & 360.

From now on...Please stay under the bridge on PS3 topics sir.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

TotalPS3Fanboy - 72 days 10 hours ago

"No, old man, it is you who is confused.
Ghostbusters looks better on the 360, as we all know."

LOL. You are confused by what I said. Ghost Buster is no where near maxing out the PS3. Microsoft just wants you to think that Ghost Buster is maxing out the PS3.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

DeathroW22 - 72 days 18 hours ago

When they said they are using 100% of the power, they just mean they are using all of the SPU's on the cell, whereas on the last Uncharted they were not.

Doesn't mean they have pushed the hardware as far as it can go.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Optical_Matrix - 72 days 18 hours ago

If 3rd party devs are creative and have the right drive then I'm sure we can see games like Uncharted 2 from them for the PS3. Versus 13's graphics already look amazing. It's set to blow people away as long as it stays exclusive and SE don't get lazy. Then again it's questionable now that White Engine has become a mere multiplat engine.
I remember the days when it was touted as being an engine that will use 4 of the Cell's SPU's for graphics alone.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

sikbeta - 72 days 18 hours ago

You are right, but she was talkin about how far ND goes with Uncharted engine and maxed out the PS3 as much as they personally could using all the components right, we know they will tweak the engine even further in order to real max out the Console

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

DeathroW22 - 72 days 18 hours ago

Yeah, i can play crysis warhead on enthusiast settings (highest possible) with 4x AA (Probably even 8x AA and stay at a good framerate) and i agree, Uncharted 2 is the best looking game i have played.

Yeah, PC games are in high resolution and will have better AA, but Uncharted 2 is more than that - the fantastic art style and enviroment effects are brilliant.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

dredgewalker - 72 days 15 hours ago

What idiot disagreed with you two? You only said U2 was one of the best looking games youve played and i also agree with it. Its pathetic to disagree with someone and not state your opinion. They didnt diss any console or game by saying this because it is FACT, so much that its one game that the media and gamers all agree upon. Not only does Uncharted look good but so does the gameplay.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report