Oblivion PS3 Downgraded. Xbox 360 upgraded? Wii errr... Never.

Maddens Raiders - 1044 days 22 hours ago

From the IGN interview with Oblivion VP of Marketing, Peter Hines 8/2/07:

--"In fact, the other reason why the downloadable content for the PS3 version of the game isn't included isn't solely because of the technical limitations of the system. Instead, it's because the designers haven't actually tested the PlayStation Network Store and the mechanisms for delivering content to systems. Considering that the development team has been spending a large amount of time making sure that the game transitions over to the PS3 well without the numerous bugs or glitches that plagued the PC and 360 versions of the game, working on the store was definitely a low priority on their list when it came to dedicating additional resources to that feature. But it is being worked on, and it will be coming at a later date."

--.."So what about the shaders or optimizations? Rumors were released stating that everything in the PS3 version of the game would migrate over to the 360 or the PC, which kicked off a screaming match on boards about which version was ultimately better. According to Hines, the shader functionality that would re-render the low-res textures would inevitably make its way to the 360 build and PC in future updates. However, certain optimizations that take advantage of the system's hardware will remain exclusive to the PS3 version of the game."

Now spin that. What else? =]

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

DJ - 1046 days 3 hours ago

I think it's time for you to retire from these BS posts. Must be hard dealing with all that denial everyday.

Agree(4) | Disagree(6) | Report

THAMMER1 - 1046 days 2 hours ago

We know you know all about denil. I mean just read your own post history. You an not really avaid me. So you should get a 360 so we can play Halo 3. I know you wan to. J/K LOLOLOLOLOLOL um no I'm for real.

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

Thugbot187 - 1045 days 13 hours ago

Man this is funny we can look back at the post where they said it would have better graphics than the 360 and what you guys were saying. Then there was the whole PS3 is way better than the 360. Well what it looks like here is PS3 not living up to the hype once again.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

XGamer - 1046 days 2 hours ago

The ps3 is more powerful and their to lazy to (here's the good part) fully utilize the power of the ps3 cell processor and RSX combo. LOL!!!!

It's underpowered for gaming, way underpowered!!! The truth is thrown, shoved even in there faces, on an almost daily basis but fools like this guy and so many others will continue to listen to songs played by a false DJ.

The ps3 isn't, and wasn't designed by sony or the trio team for gaming, but instead to fully utilize the cell to carry out multiple tasks at one time. (dont get excited now) Multiple small tasks such as spead sheets etc...but for gaming it's a hinderance and not a help. This "TRUTH" you keep hearing is said by those that would most profit so cut the MS ownes them BS, it does in the fact that the Xbox 360 is the gaming king and sony is a sinking ship, once thought to be a battle ship but was just a passenger ship all along.

You can love your ps3 and play some great games on it but it's not going to EVER be the king of gaming this time round due to it's limitations. Take it or leave it.

Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report

CyberSentinel - 1046 days 1 hour ago

A $600 dollar system that cant display armor on a horse.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

bluhefner - 1046 days ago

How the hell is the PS3 underpowered when it can run the Havok 4.5 engine which is 5-10 faster then Havok 4.0 (which is the one Bungie is using for Halo 3). U make no sense.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

MoonDust - 1046 days ago

Show me where it says Bungie is using that engine.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

bluhefner - 1046 days ago

http://ps3.qj.net/Showing-o...

At the bottom of the article it states Havok 4.0 is being used for Halo 3 and Sonic series, its old.

http://ps3.qj.net/Havok-4-5...

And heres a link to where it says PS3 can run Havok 4.5.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

The Snake - 1045 days 23 hours ago

Ok now for a link that says the 360 can't run Havok 4.5 please. Just because Halo uses an older version doesn't mean the platform can't handle the newer version.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Jason 360 - 1044 days 5 hours ago

“How the hell is the PS3 underpowered when it can run the Havok 4.5 engine which is 5-10 faster then Havok 4.0”

Just because the PS3 can run Havok 4.5 doesn’t mean it will play games right.
My computer will run Vista and DX10 but won’t play Crysis. Why? Because of some of the same hardware limitations TheMart had pointed out in comment #3.

“(which is the one Bungie is using for Halo 3). U make no sense.”

That makes no sense, Havok 4.5 is new they have been working on Halo 3 for about three years (there was no 4.5 then Jan. 23, 2007)

http://ps3.qj.net/Havok-4-5...
“And heres a link to where it says PS3 can run Havok 4.5”

What are you trying to say the 360 cant and the PS3 can or what?

“San Francisco, Calif., Jan. 23, 2007 – Havok announces today the official release of Havok 4.5, the latest update to its modular suite of artist tools and run-time technology. Fully optimized for Sony PLAYSTATION®3, as well as Microsoft Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii, Havok 4.5 dramatically accelerates the development of cross-platform, cutting edge electronic games, meeting the needs of the world’s top developers and producers.” http://www.havok.com/conten...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Antan - 1046 days 3 hours ago

"HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!STFU 360 fanboys,youre just a bunch of liers and the ps3 is much much better than the 360 and Oblivion has just proven it,hahahaha!!!"

Easy tiger!

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

UrbanJabroni - 1046 days 1 hour ago

before you tell anyone on this site to "STFU." Pot...kettle...black.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

blackmagic - 1045 days 20 hours ago

hmmm... take another gander at the Peter Hines response that you yourself posted fx35:

"In fact, the other reason why the downloadable content for the PS3 version of the game isn't included isn't >SOLELY< because of the technical limitations of the system"

Here's my take... The ps3 uses 96MB of ram for it's OS, the 360 uses 32MB leaving the PS3 with a 64MB deficit compared to the 360. Clearly, Bethesda has managed to shoehorn the game into the available ram on the ps3. If the game engine runs then I imagine current and future map or mission based expansions such as mehrune's razor will not be an issue and will become available online. However, current and future expansions such as the horse armor which require skins/graphical models to be added to npc's may indeed offer significant challenges if this option wasn't able to fit into the smaller available system ram without introducing negative effects on framerates for example. Obviously, I am not a bethesda developer and this is only a thought based scenario but it does illustrate that some aspects of the engine may have needed to be cut to get the game running at the level they wanted and these may changes may have meant that the expansions are not possible in their current form. After some reworking, they will likely become available and maybe some elements will never make it due to negative trade-offs to get them working.

Just my $0.02...

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

DJ - 1046 days 2 hours ago

The fact that they're getting more out of a split-memory architecture than a unified architecture shows the benefits of Sony's design decisions. You'd think MS would've learned their lesson on the original Xbox.

Agree(4) | Disagree(5) | Report

TheMART at Xboxkings - 1046 days 1 hour ago

Huh DJ do you even read stuff???

" As it turns out, it's due to a memory limitation with the Playstation 3 itself.

Bethesda simply could not find a way to load every piece of downloadable content without affecting the performance of the game. Considering that the Xbox 360 can pull off this feat without a hitch, it looks like the $1 billion dollar gamble has paid off again for Microsoft."

I don't think that's in favour of the PS3 split memory.

Second, split memory is causing more problems. What are the benefits exactly DJ? Explain to us all. You're twisting stuff again dude.

Stay with the facts. Lesson with the original XBOX? That console that kicked the PS2 in graphics so hard? That one? What lesson should MS have learned from that, otherwise then that they're on the right way?

Oh wait, maybe you mean the OS of the PS3 is eating up 100 MB, 20% of it's total Ram. It's eating up almost half of it's Ram dedicated for CPU. The 360 on the other hand uses 30 MB or so max. That makes it 17% more Ram available on the 360 for games

Still surprised the 360 gets the better games???

@ DJ's comment below, this is getting to funny now

OMG

"I get my info straight from developers, not rumors or 'leaked' articles. The benefits of having split memory architecture is that the CPU and GPU don't fight over both RAM and bandwidth. "

Allright, now you are out of facts you try the 'powercomment'.
You get your info straight from developers, not rumors or 'leaked' articles. Nice man.

Name me the companies/dev's you're in contact with. Don't say: "I may not because they don't want to be mentioned". I won't buy that sh!t. I don't ask for peoples names, I don't ask phone numbers, just company names. And tell me what your relation is with them.

THe articles posted are straight from dev's, hardware specialists or respected people that earned their position in games (John Carmack for example), and you should know better? Please. I have to laugh out hard now, or maybe I should cry.

The memory by the OS used is right and you know it. PS3's OS uses 96 mb of memory (32 video, 64 main). Pretty high when the 360 OS only uses 32 MBs and 3% of it's 2 cores. Stop the Cell SPU bull please.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/por...

"Everything comes at a cost and here are the costs for the 360.

32MB of the 512mb of available GDDR3 RAM
3% CPU time on Core1 and Core2 (nothing is reserved on Core0)
Microsoft still has room left from what they’ve already reserved for future updates.

Transitioning to the PS3’s Operating system here is what the resource allocation looks like.

Sony of course has decided to match Microsoft by using a constantly running in the background Operating system and here is what it includes. Again I will not be going into what it offers as most already know by now.

The costs for the PS3’s operating system are as follows

32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved
1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)"

DJ just got pwned by a person that does know and DJ doesn't clearly.

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

THAMMER1 - 1046 days 1 hour ago

Come on MAN!! You are not for real.

See other PS3 fans should learn from this. Just because you make a counter 360 statement dose not mean you are making a good supportive PS3 statement.

*READ DJ's posts in this thread. If you believe them or plan to use it for you own pro PS3 arguments do your own research because DJ is not a creditable source. Use Ibm.com for the Cell and Nvidia.com for the RSX. And ask a PC gamer or call Alienware to see if a split RAM over a unified RAM is the way to go.

Many members of news for games have tried to post and spread the truth. If you do not believe us go to another source for more info. Because it is now proven tat the PS3 is poorly designed.

Now for true PS3 fan that want it for the games MGS4 is coming and it will be rock solid and no will Final Fantasy for those of you who like to play that stuff. And just say the right things about your PS3 like wow I like it for the games. Because the hardware is not better than the 360's it is close but do not expect it to be magical. GOOD times baby

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

deep - 1046 days 1 hour ago

It's different architecture. We'll see the benefits in time - they still don't really understand cell - for a lot of its stuff it doesn't need much memory or even the rsx. It's all brand new 'alien' tech.

And I ran out of bubbles on the motorstorm page. Motorstorm does have just as good graphics as Gears...and yes I have played gears...its ace. And my impressions of Motorstorm are from hd movies of it playing. NOW the graphical quality is the same BUT the art directions are completely different, so it's hard to compare - the artistic design on gears is immense - motorstorm is different, faster, and lots of vehicles in action - and the graphics and physics look incredible. You can argue about artistic design...go ahead...

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

UrbanJabroni - 1046 days 1 hour ago

Then come to this conclusion:

:The fact that they're getting more out of a split-memory architecture than a unified architecture shows the benefits of Sony's design decisions."

Mind...boggling.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

DJ - 1046 days 1 hour ago

I get my info straight from developers, not rumors or 'leaked' articles. The benefits of having split memory architecture is that the CPU and GPU don't fight over both RAM and bandwidth. This gives PS3 something like twice the memory bandwidth of the 360, and since RSX has XDR texture logic built in there's no issue with splitting the memory pools. Devs only found this out when they received the final kits in May~July 2006 since only the final kits had the RSX. Earlier kits ran on 7800GTX's, which apparently had 1/15th the amount of CPU <-> GPU bandwidth, was only 430 Mhz, half the vertex cache, weak HDR, etc. Beta kits sucked compared to the final product, which is why we're getting such a huge leap with upcoming titles.

BTW Mart, you gotta stop posting those fake OS requirements. The actual system requirement for the PS3's OS is 5% of an SPE's execution time. Devs actually have access to all 7 SPES (6.95 SPEs if you want to get technical). Ram requirements are also relatively low.

I don't know why Unified RAM is somehow seen as the way to go since GDDR3 is catered towards the high-latency requirements of GPUs; CPUs have low-latency requirements. PCs have split-memory architecture since those GPUs you shove in there have their own dedicated RAM modules. And it's not CPU RAM. It's GDDR RAM (i.e. V-RAM). Microsoft's Xbox division seems absolutely obsessed over the term 'unified' when really there aren't many benefits to doing it that way. Even nVidia complained about how their GPU was bogged down in the original Xbox due to the unified layout (it ran entirely on SDRAM, which is meant for CPUs. No wonder they prefer the PS3's layout). The solution? Microsoft decided to solely use GPU RAM for the 360. Not the best solution since the CPU's being starved bandwidth-wise this time around, but I guess it's something.

Agree(4) | Disagree(6) | Report

Xi - 1046 days ago

there's a reason we use unified architecture in home computers, and there's a reason why we don't use split memory, As a computer science undergrad, I've tried coding from multi threads, not fun, and it's even less fun to try and use split memory. The reason we don't use it is because it's not USEFUL! it doesn't add anything to the system. The rsx is inferior to the r500, and it's dx10 capabilities (yes ati got dx10 running on the xbox gpu, it's why a game like crysis can get work on the 360). Oh and about the final sdk's being weaker? why did they have to roll back clock times on the rsx then? The RSX was to fast for the cells. DJ, stop reading sony rhetoric and look at some 3rd party sites. Though the cell is strong it needs 7 to do the same as the 3 in the xbox 360, and lack of unified pipelines in the ps3, choke the system quite a bit. There's a reson why developers enjoy working with the 360 more.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Arkham - 1045 days 22 hours ago

"'Huh DJ do you even read stuff???

" As it turns out, it's due to a memory limitation with the Playstation 3 itself.

Bethesda simply could not find a way to load every piece of downloadable content without affecting the performance of the game. Considering that the Xbox 360 can pull off this feat without a hitch, it looks like the $1 billion dollar gamble has paid off again for Microsoft."'
----

Do *you* even read the stuff? You're quoting *Joystiq's* slant on it, not Bethesda's statement. Their last official word on not including that content was based on factors relating to game-balance.

Man, some people have problems with basic media reading comprehension.

You'll grasp at any half-truth to promote your little biases, won't you?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

UrbanJabroni - 1046 days 1 hour ago

"enhanced graphical presentation thanks to new pixel shaders that displayed sharper details"

These are coming to the 360, as stated in both articles.

The PS3 will keep its proprietary OPTIMIZATIONS. Not graphical improvements. Optimizations for the hardware to make the _same_ graphics run well on the PS3.

I'm really not trying to be Pro-360on this. I'm just trying to point out that the games will look the SAME on both systems. Why must everything negative for one console need to be responded with "yah...well your console has this wrong with it." It is a basic deflection technique favored by politicians...and it is surprising to see intelligent human beings use it on a message board.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

UrbanJabroni - 1046 days ago

Your assumptions are incorrect. I, like many others, have a PS3 and support it. I am very pro BluRay. I am not, however, a blind fanboy who refuses to see that the system has a lot of problems. If we continue to give Sony a free-pass by ignoring the negatives, they will never get fixed.

People on this forum like to twist facts to bash another console, and I, like many others again, feel the need to try and correct the mistakes people are trying to attribute as facts. The article is a fact, and that sucks. Improved PS3 visuals that aren't on the 360, however, is a false statement. All we are looking for is the truth.

Bethesda clearly wants all fans of their games, regardless of their system, to have the same quality and is going to patch the game across all systems to look equally good. How is this a bad thing in any way?

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

Yo Wassap - 1045 days 4 hours ago

It's nice to see that somebody is using their bubbles to smooth things out, no wonder you have 7. Well deserved

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

deep - 1046 days ago

FightNight3 was said by many sights to be notably better than the 360 version. - whether that's more time for the developers to fiddle, or something to do with the architecture is something else. Wouldn't want to speculate. Wouldn't want to speculate on any of this really.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

THAMMER1 - 1046 days ago

You wouldn't want to speculate. Then how do you explain your logic about the PS3 period? That is all speculation...RIGHT!! HA O.K. your turning into a tool. COME ON mAN!!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

deep - 1046 days ago

What? I'm avoiding you? Turning into a tool? Why are you being so offensive? Am I anywhere a sony fanboy? My comments have been pro xbox and pro ps3. I replyed to you about motorstorm on here, because id run out of bubbles on the other page.

I said, even though fightnight looks better on the ps3 that its no sign the architecture is better, but probably just more time optimising the game.

I never said ps3 was running rings around the xbox. I'm just trying to stop people like you being so down right offensive and shouting in their faces for no reason.

If you feel my posts have been irrelevant or fanboyish then your wrong, have a look at yourself you 'tool'.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

deep - 1045 days 23 hours ago

Young sir I never said FightNight3 has been proven to look better on the ps3. My sources are the same as your 'proven to look better on the 360' sources - reviews from sites that say good things and bad things about both systems. Even gamespot says that the ps3 version has the edge and they are xbox360 fanboys.

Anyway I said it HAS BEEN SAID -not that it has been proven. I for one don't think it says anything about the capabilities of either system because I'm not a retarded fanboy, but that when people say 'games all look better on the 360' the difference is nominal in most cases, and in some cases it really isn't true.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

funkybudda - 1045 days 21 hours ago

way to mention a port title, which is by one of the notorious lazy companies such as EA/UBI/KOEI etc.

Compare first party exclusive games, like if you say gears of war looks better than resistance, I will give you that.

Your retarded to try to justify your hard-on for MS with these port games by companies who care less about gamers but just want to rush crap outta door and make money.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report