'PS3 memory limitations' producer clarifies comments

player911 - 509 days 5 hours ago

I'm sure they understand it perfectly if they have to write games for it.

Maybe THEIR not the "d1ckbag"s

The PS3 has 256mb RAM and includes a 256mb video card. At no time can the system or the graphics card use 512mb at once. This is the limitation.

The 360 can dedicate UP TO 512mb to any 1 process if needed.

Grow up and do your homework before opening your trap. In no way was the article false. Don't expect your "internet skillz" to overcome these college graduates who develop FOR the system. They know damn well what those systems have.

All they said was that the PS3's 256mb VIDEO limitation was a problem when converting a game that required 512mb texture pools.

Don't be a fool, stay in school.

Agree(6) | Disagree(7) | Report

Ju - 509 days 4 hours ago

PS3 users really need to calm down. Perez is absolutely right. And there's nothing wrong about it. If you design a game with the assumption you can load textures into 512MB static buffers (minus whatever else you need) and all of a sudden that's down to 256 this is a problem.

If they take the HD, streaming, SPU performance into consideration in the first place, the 256 are sufficient, I am pretty sure. Especially if procedural textures are used instead of static textures.

All he was saying is, that the original game was not designed that way. That's all. This is BTW also the biggest draw back of UT3 which had (and has ?) the same problems. Designed for a lot of texture memory.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Kleptic - 508 days 14 hours ago

player911...please inform us on when exactly the 360 ever dedicates 512 megs to a single process GPU bound or vice versa?...that NEVER comes close to happening...

Epic commented on the unified vs. dedicated memory setups when optimising UE3 for the PS3...in which case the unified ram would only skew around 15megs in either direction for any one process...meaning, for the most part, the CPU and GPU were split down the middle in terms of ram anyway...The PS3 is setup more like a traditional gaming PC, just with radically less ram...the 360 is setup more like a budget laptop with an integrated grahpics chipset, albeit an equally powerful chipset...its just the memory allocation is totally different...

what WAS missed from the original comment was that the G70 based RSX is perfectly capable of using the CPU's XDR (afterall, that piping is the biggest difference between the RSX and the 7800 GTX in which it is based off of)...so in the sense of texture pooling from static textures, the two consoles are very similar...its in how the CPUs behave and use memory allocation that is 100% different...

THAT IS NOT what that guy said yesterday...he said the PS3 only has 256mb of 'video' ram, which it doesn't...the RSX can use the high bandwidth XDR ram if the developers are inclined...

You shouldn't assume everyone on the internet is uneducated or ignorant...the people making the games do make PR mistakes...this is one of them...whether he was taken out of his original context is unknown...but his 'corrective' comments in this article do little to explain what he was talking about yesterday...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

AliC - 509 days 5 hours ago

More to the point is there much interest for the game.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

jaysquared - 509 days 9 hours ago

Why would THIRD PARTY developers need to waste their time to explore the PS3 when they can just focus on the 360s version which is easier and cheaper to develope on.. You can't blame the developers for not wanting to waste their time trying to understand the PS3 more.. In business time is money! So the longer they take trying to understand the system the more money and development time is put into a game.. Sony is the one at fault in making a complex system and not providing the tools and help needed for the developers. You can also blame some of that on Microsoft for making it so much easier for developers.

Agree(21) | Disagree(30) | Report

Sheddi - 509 days 9 hours ago

Everything isnt about money!
Now ur sounding like EA

Agree(13) | Disagree(9) | Report

beavis4play - 509 days 8 hours ago

why don't you listen to ted price of insomniac or hideo kojima of konami?

and if the 360 is such a "dream" to develop for; why aren't devs lining up to be 1st party devs for MS instead of devs leaving MS? their 1st party studios are practically non-existant.

aaaaaand, if development is easier and cheaper on 360, explain vaporware titles alan wake and halo wars. AW announced in '05 and still nothing. HW announced last year and is missing this years launch schedule.

just some examples of how i think you're wrong. devs just don't want quick and easy. they want the best hardware to create the best games. there is nothing like ratchet on x360. nor is there anything like uncharted,GT5p,KZ2,MGS4. however, there isn't 1 game done on the 360 that can't be done on ps3. price and kojima have both stated that their games couldn't be done on 360 without running into trouble.

is ps3 more advanced to dev. for? yes. does that mean 3rd party devs aren't interested? no. and by the way, you enjoy "monster madness". i'll just have to be content with MGS4.

Agree(18) | Disagree(5) | Report

dfcm2003 - 509 days 8 hours ago

In business time is money! --- Yes, and if they took the time, it would make them money. Ps3 is already ahead of Xbox in EU, So the time is comming they are going to have to put the effort into the PS3.

Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report

karlostomy - 509 days 8 hours ago

I cannot help but agree with you, Man.

I have read "damn lazy ps3 developers" in hundreds and hundreds of posts and the central issue is just not understood by the SDF.

- It costs developers MILLIONS to make games and all the risk is theirs. It's always a risk/payoff matrix decision for them to make when they develop a game.

- If Sony wants to maximise the potential for their ps3, what is stopping them from releasing tools and devkits on par or better than what MS has supplied to the developers?

- If Sony really believed there was THAT much untapped potential, they should be falling over themselves to get developers up to speed at any and all levels (as MS did right at the start), because developers have clearly been struggling to justify all the extra effort on PS3 for no more appreciable result.

it really is that simple.

Agree(16) | Disagree(13) | Report

juuken - 509 days 8 hours ago

jaysquared, why would they waste their time on the 360(using your logic as to why any developer would waste their time on the PS3)? The 360, in many ways keeps the PS3 back. What you just asked me is quite foolish. Why waste time on the 360? If they are developers, then they need to act like developers instead of taking the easy way out when it comes to developing games.

The 360 was the easy way out.

edit: Love the disagree there. Instead of proving me wrong, the easy way is chosen.

Agree(9) | Disagree(14) | Report

coolfool - 509 days 7 hours ago

I will have a go at replying to you but before I am branded I just want say that I think I'm more of a PS3 fan and don't own a 360.

You seem to have ignored the valid points above regarding development time and money. It has been stated many times that the 360 is an easier and more familiar (because of PC developement) to develop for. So for these companies developing games for the 360 is cheaper and yet can still have desired results. The longer a game is in development the more it is costing the company. The quicker the company can start seeing overall returns for the development the better the profit margin. Lets not kid ourselves that developers main priority is anything other than making money. Game development is a business after all.

360 being the "easy way out" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now, on saying that I do think that if the time is put into developing for the PS3 the results are usually better. But does that potentially (as it's not guaranteed at the beginning of development) better game offset the extra cost of development? Some devs have obviously said yes whereas others have chosen to stick with the 360.

Agree(10) | Disagree(5) | Report

juuken - 509 days 7 hours ago

Fine, you have a few points coolfool, but I am sick and tired of developers not AT LEAST trying with the PS3. That's why I felt they were taking the easy way out. If someone like Kojima, the guys who are making Resistance 2, and Killzone 2 can try understanding the technology a bit more, then why can't more developers do that?

That's ridiculous.

Agree(7) | Disagree(8) | Report

karlostomy - 509 days 7 hours ago

There are just some people who get so emotional on N4g, that no logic or reasonable debate will sway them in their crusade.
I do believe they are called trolls.

bubbles for you.

Agree(6) | Disagree(5) | Report

coolfool - 509 days 6 hours ago

Is designing a game for the 360 and then expecting a port will be as good. Especially now, this far into ps3's life, when other devs have tried this and blatantly failed. Why would devs still do this and not learn from past failures? It doesn't make sense even from a business perspective because a crappy port never really sales.

Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report

karlostomy - 509 days 6 hours ago

I could give you my take on it, but I would lose all my bubbles for just stating some facts.
Yes. that is n4g for you.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

AceLuby - 509 days 5 hours ago

Sony has a bunch of first party studios. More than Nintendo and Microsoft combined and Nintendo RELIES on first party games and has since SNES. Sony has enough 1st party studios to put out at least 1 great game every 10-12 months, plus they help with exclusive titles.

If it costs money for developers to 'figure out' the PS3 it must also cost Sony to 'teach' it to them. However in Sony's eyes, why put that much effort into multiplatform when they see little to no benefit in it? I mean GTA didn't even sell consoles on either side and that's a huge multiplat title.

What I'm trying to say is that Sony has great 1st party support to put out fantastic looking games (see Ratchet). Now if they are producing games that cannot be produced on the 360, and are making money (most of Sony's game money is in software sales), then why shouldn't it be up to the 3rd party devs to 'figure out' the PS3 to make their own money?

Its a risk/reward situation... They could risk it and make it PS3 only, or lead develop on the PS3 to 'possibly' unlock some untapped power not found on the 360, or start (or go exclusive) to the 360, know exactly what you can or cannot do and 'may' have a better or worse looking end product.

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

Isaac - 509 days 5 hours ago

That doesn-t mean they can not program the 360 version with the PS3 in mind. That is, if they REALLY care about money, they can start with the 360 version and make it work the way it would work on PS3 with split memory; otherwise they are only setting themselves up as PS3 owners will not buy their garbage. I know this falls on deaf fanboy ears (like karlostomys, judging by his avatar), but this is for the ones that arent as dense. To know what I mean, read this:

"The new developer, Psyonix, has great experience with UE3 and the PS3. Therefore we had a fairly smooth transition to the PS3. The problem was not the console's but the technical assumptions that were made in the game's original engineering. Multiplatform games really need to take into consideration the technical nuances of the systems early on."

"Monster Madness: Grave Danger is set for release on the PS3 in Q3 2008."

Again, for emphasis:

"The problem was not the console's but the technical assumptions that were made in the game's original engineering"

OK, it is releasing in Q3 2008, but they made "technical assumptions" about PS3 so far after the specs were revealed? Remember, they are game developers, they should have a fairly good idea of how to develop for a system once specs are revealed. So wow, talk about being an ignorant developer, no wonder he made such stupid comments initially.

The dev can still save money and make a good game on both PS3 and 360. Activision did it with Call of Duty 4, EA did it with Burnout Paradise, Capcom with DMC4, among other examples, and it paid off.

Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report

DJ - 509 days 5 hours ago

And they keep putting out new tools and software packages (as well as documentation) to get developers up to speed on multi-core architecture. But there's only so much they can do for third parties due to legal issues. For example, while every studio within SCE shares technology with each other, they're not allowed to share that technology with third parties due to such legalities.

But they are allowed to share techniques, which is what the Nocturne initiative is all about.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

titntin - 509 days 8 hours ago

Errrr. no!

What you have done is to repeat exactly the same inaccurate comments that got people annoyed in the first place. The PS3 has 512 meg of ram available at all times - the only difference in the architecture is how you access and use it.

The BS comments about 'offset by the cell' are the kind of techno babble spoken by people with almost no understanding of data motion within a complex next gen system. He spoke about an area of the game he knows nothing about, and has now had to try and cover up his obviously poor comprehension. If he wanted to talk about technical issues, he should have had his programmer there, so that he wouldn't expose his technical misunderstandings.

There are very few producers in the business who understand the tech stuff, and to be fair, that's not a problem, only a basic appreciation is needed to do the producer role right. I've worked with many successful producers who have very little idea of how the code is executed. Its only a problem if you start talking about areas of the game pipeline that you don't really understand - and thats what happened here.

Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report

beavis4play - 509 days 8 hours ago

he doesn't even actually work with any hardware and his devs don't work with the ps3. but,if it was "just about money" as you say. devs. would only be making games for ps2. huge install base(more than all three next gen systems combined) but there is more involved. why not listen to what other devs (who have made huge selling games, unlike southpeak) are saying about the ps3. many have said it takes a little time to get to grips with it; but, once you do, there is more potential there than the 360. and we are seeing this in games like ratchet, uncharted, GT5p, KZ2, MGS4, resistance2. and as more time goes by, MS will be forced to bring out a new system because their hardware is already looking old.(dvd9 format? forza 2 is said to be on 2 discs? yea, that's next-gen.lol) so, if all a dev or consumer wants is a "cookie-cutter" game where they are all close to same game; then, 360 is perfect choice.(really, is halo 3 much diff. than halo 2 other than a few multi-player tweaks? is gears2 looking much diff. than gears1?) many of the well-known devs are making or developing amazing games for ps3 and the potential isn't nearly tapped. yea, if it's just about money, devs should be making ps2 games. if it's about trying to turn out the same game over and over; they should be making games for the 360. but, if someone wants to make or buy true cutting edge, next gen games; the ps3 is place to go.

Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report

IdleLeeSiuLung - 509 days 2 hours ago

I'm actually suprised so many of you about are complaining about gnothe1 comment. He is accurate and I suspect you guys might have a misunderstood the PS3 architecture. It is true that 512MB ram on the PS3 is available at any time. However, not all the 512MB of ram is available for textures if the developer wish so. In fact the PS3 is limited to 256MB RAM for textures period!

The 360 allows for far more flexible use of the 512 MB ram available in exchange for a small performance hit for every memory access. So the developer is free to decide how much of the memory should be used for the CPU or GPU.

Doesn't matter who made the original comment about this, even if it is Kojima or any other game creator. Fact is fact, and he is right.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

PLiPhaze - 509 days 5 hours ago

You pretty much summed it up, but he didn't help his cause by commenting in an area he doesn't fully understand

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

juuken - 509 days 2 hours ago

Right on!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Not the Face - 509 days 1 hour ago

turns back to mgs4 after waiting 5mins for the next level to load. why?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

DJ - 509 days 5 hours ago

Simply because the PS3 is more like a PC than the 360 is. But the PS3 will definitely be competing with the third Xbox for several years, and quite successfully I'm sure.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Guitarded - 509 days 5 hours ago

Are you not reading, or is it your comprehension. Quickly learning the ps3 is not possible, hence more time=more money. How long was MGS4 in development? GT5? How much did they cost?

Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report

DJ - 509 days 5 hours ago

All three games were announced years ago, and still haven't been released. Proper game development in general takes a lot of time and money; there's no way around it, and it's not platform-specific.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

thehitman - 509 days 4 hours ago

MGS was in development simply because Kojima wasnt done its the largest game out for a reason. Second GT5 I have no clue what is wrong w/ it or w.e they are doing but Im 100% it has nothing to do w/ the ps3 being complicated ur just naming random games that have taken long development at least name good 1s like Haze. And how has Insomnaic learned quickly what about Epic Naughtydog I seen no problems in their games they can do it. Even some of EA's studios have done something good Criterion Games with Burnout all those studios have proven time and time again that hard work pays off.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report