The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals.
In a ten-page reveal in its latest issue, Edge writes that the Xbox 360 version of Rage - which uses id's new Tech 5 engine - matches the 60fps framerate of the PC version, while PS3 runs at just "20-30fps".
Update: id Software has responded in the aftermath of the Edge article, saying: "The Edge Magazine article has caused quite a ruckus. We are committed to ensuring that gamers on all platforms have a great RAGE experience," on its official Twitter feed. Update Ends.
It's not mentioned whether the PS3 framerate will be addressed by the game's eventual release.
"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that.
"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said.
Rage
Official trailer
0:41Fight the prowlers that be!
Rage
Official trailer
0:41Fight the prowlers that be!
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
The PS3 edition was thought to be the most technically capable of the console pair, thanks to id being able to squeeze the gigantic shooter onto a single-player Blu-ray disc, compared to Xbox 360's four DVDs.
Update: Edge has posted further details from its article saying that Carmack is confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: "Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.
"The work remaining is getting it locked so there's never a dropped frame or a tear, but we're confident that we're going to get that."
Don't worry my little PS3, I'm sure they'll be something worth switching you on for soon....erm...oh yeah! Uncharted 2, that's not multi-format so can't run better on my xbox 360.
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in, other developers have shown that they can get a fast framerate coupled with amazing graphics/physics/AI and sound out of the console in tandem. Blaming the low fps on the PS3 itself is just ignorant, and exposes his laziness. There are workarounds and methods to fix this obstacle.
Yes, ID may rectify the fps issue by launch and here's hoping, but to openly come out with that comment on how slow it is on PS3 compared to his other format versions (of which the 360 was likely the easiest to port, as explained later on), is just stupid and fanboy baiting. If this is seen as a fanboy comment, I couldn't god-damn care less. I'm just tired of developers moaning about this-or-that on whatver console. You CHOSE to release it on that format, therefore you are OBLIGED to make do, and make the best of it you can.
The quote "only a shoddy workman blames his tools" comes to mind, though... only a tool, blames other tools.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, I have all consoles, and I buy the game for whatever format has the most optimised and feature-heavy version (mostly PC) but I'd personally rather have a slightly slower (albeit very playable - 30fps is fine you snobs) version than having "INSERT DISC 2", "INSERT DISC 3", "INSERT DISC 4" on every so-often. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in, other developers have shown that they can get a fast framerate coupled with amazing graphics/physics/AI and sound out of the console in tandem. Blaming the low fps on the PS3 itself is just ignorant, and exposes his laziness. There are workarounds and methods to fix this obstacle.
Yes, ID may rectify the fps issue by launch and here's hoping, but to openly come out with that comment on how slow it is on PS3 compared to his other format versions (of which the 360 was likely the easiest to port, as explained later on), is just stupid and fanboy baiting. If this is seen as a fanboy comment, I couldn't god-damn care less. I'm just tired of developers moaning about this-or-that on whatver console. You CHOSE to release it on that format, therefore you are OBLIGED to make do, and make the best of it you can.
The quote "only a shoddy workman blames his tools" comes to mind, though... only a tool, blames other tools.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, I have all consoles, and I buy the game for whatever format has the most optimised and feature-heavy version (mostly PC) but I'd personally rather have a slightly slower (albeit very playable - 30fps is fine you snobs) version than having "INSERT DISC 2", "INSERT DISC 3", "INSERT DISC 4" on every so-often. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in
I'm sorry but did you just call John Carmack a lazy programmer? Erm...that seems a little unfair given that he is one of very few people in the world who can ask for a new Gfx card feature and nVidia and ATi will bend over backwards to incorporate it into their next iteration!
The way I interpret what he says here is that Sony made the same mistake with the PS3 that they made with the PS2. The learning curve for the PS2 was unlike any console that came before it. It might be more powerful, but what company has the time and money to spend on researching something that should be handed to you with the development kits. Now, if the PS2 learning curve was steep...I can only imagine what the PS3 must be like. And if id are having trouble then that does not bode well for ANY other company.
Of course, this is not the first report of problems developing for the PS3 - wasn't it GTAIV that was delayed due to problems getting it running smoothly?
I am not going to argue that the PS3 might be the technically superior hardware - but that doesn't count for anything if you don't make that power easily accessible to the developer.
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in, other developers have shown that they can get a fast framerate coupled with amazing graphics/physics/AI and sound out of the console in tandem. Blaming the low fps on the PS3 itself is just ignorant, and exposes his laziness. There are workarounds and methods to fix this obstacle.
Yes, ID may rectify the fps issue by launch and here's hoping, but to openly come out with that comment on how slow it is on PS3 compared to his other format versions (of which the 360 was likely the easiest to port, as explained later on), is just stupid and fanboy baiting. If this is seen as a fanboy comment, I couldn't god-damn care less. I'm just tired of developers moaning about this-or-that on whatver console. You CHOSE to release it on that format, therefore you are OBLIGED to make do, and make the best of it you can.
The quote "only a shoddy workman blames his tools" comes to mind, though... only a tool, blames other tools.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, I have all consoles, and I buy the game for whatever format has the most optimised and feature-heavy version (mostly PC) but I'd personally rather have a slightly slower (albeit very playable - 30fps is fine you snobs) version than having "INSERT DISC 2", "INSERT DISC 3", "INSERT DISC 4" on every so-often. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
The only idiot here is you. If you bothered to read the entire article from Edge you would note that id pointed out issues developing for both the PS3 and 360. Instead, like a rabid fanboy, you jump on one particular issue and moan at the developer even though the game is nowhere near completion.
Go read the article, cause at this moment your mad ramblings are kind of embaressing.
being a pc programmer doesnt automatically translate into a console developer.
if he's reporting that ps3 is only running at that speed and gets it up to par for release, hes an idiot. if he doesnt hes lazy.
the ps3 isnt on par as its being developed as a pc game - and the 360 requires hardly any changes in technique. the ps3 will need more adjustments due to it being more of a 'port'.
this game wont look better than some other games on ps3 running at 60 frames, CoD4 for one.
Pointing the finger at the BR drive just shows how little you f-ing know about consoles, and how arrogant you are as a person.
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in, other developers have shown that they can get a fast framerate coupled with amazing graphics/physics/AI and sound out of the console in tandem. Blaming the low fps on the PS3 itself is just ignorant, and exposes his laziness. There are workarounds and methods to fix this obstacle.
Yes, ID may rectify the fps issue by launch and here's hoping, but to openly come out with that comment on how slow it is on PS3 compared to his other format versions (of which the 360 was likely the easiest to port, as explained later on), is just stupid and fanboy baiting. If this is seen as a fanboy comment, I couldn't god-damn care less. I'm just tired of developers moaning about this-or-that on whatver console. You CHOSE to release it on that format, therefore you are OBLIGED to make do, and make the best of it you can.
The quote "only a shoddy workman blames his tools" comes to mind, though... only a tool, blames other tools.
A little more time spend on the PS3 version and they'd get it on par fps-wise with the PC. Of course the 360 version's going to run at a similar rate to that of the PC, as the 360 is essentially, a PC, in a smaller box.
Lazy developers deserve little of my time and patience.
Also, I have all consoles, and I buy the game for whatever format has the most optimised and feature-heavy version (mostly PC) but I'd personally rather have a slightly slower (albeit very playable - 30fps is fine you snobs) version than having "INSERT DISC 2", "INSERT DISC 3", "INSERT DISC 4" on every so-often. Multi-disc gaming tbh is very 1990's
That's nice. While we may be "idiots" you are busy being a bona fide assclown.
1) I'd be willing to bet good money Carmack leaves you eating dust in regards to knowledge and ability where it concerns game programming, so really his professional opinion means a whole lot more than your moaning.
2) Carmack didn't seem to be so much complaining as making an observation about the difference in FPS for "Rage" on the PC, Xbox 360 and the PS3.
3) 30 FPS is a decent gaming experience in terms of FPS. Beyond 60 FPS the human eye on average doesn't see much difference from what I gather.
4) Just buck up and openly display the SDF fanboy shirt you wear beneath your weak claims to the opposite. I very much doubt few of the people who have read your comment believe your claims to the contrary anyway.
Blame the devs for being lazy not the system. We all know the differences are minimal not 30fps thats just down right lazy! 1st off do your job proper ID your being paid s**t loads for it 2nd grow up cvg for being such fanboy baiting tossers and 3rd for the fanboys grow the f**k up you nerds and go out and feel some tit.
So wait, you're telling me id, a dev with a considerable understanding of making games for PC, gets better performance from a PC and a console with similar architecture than a console that doesn't?
Somebody catch me before I faint from shock.
Will these interminable fanboy-bait articles never cease?
for the last time, the 360 architecture is not like a pc! more like an old mac so don't go bleating on about 'easy to port this and that'. maybe rage just isn't designed for the ps3's nuances from the ground up and that's why it's suffering.
old crazy Ken's favourite song must be "I did it MY WAAAAY".
and Sony are suffering because of it on 3rd party titles.
Do you even know how to program? I'd like to see you make it 60 fps on PS3. Until then, zip it.
While I agree with your sentiment, it seems only fair to point out that if we all were only ever allowed to criticize and/or state our opinion - good or bad - about something we could do just as well as those we are commenting on, then I suspect an awful lot of us would be a lot more quiet on a great many topics....
for the last time, the 360 architecture is not like a pc! more like an old mac so don't go bleating on about 'easy to port this and that'. maybe rage just isn't designed for the ps3's nuances from the ground up and that's why it's suffering.
old crazy Ken's favourite song must be "I did it MY WAAAAY".
and Sony are suffering because of it on 3rd party titles.
So what you are really saying is that you found another LAZY company that cannot properly program the PS3, right?
Carmack said: "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," ... Don't try and fool us man. That might work for the Teenies, but not me. It's funny Carmack, how do the other REALLY, REALLY great developers do it for the PS3 and come out with TRULLY SPECTACULAR products? Or is it just that you guys want to take the easy and cheaper road...it's all about the quick and easy $$$$$. Go ahead take NO risks to make a stellar product. Pride in your work means nothing anymore. Why not try and stand out of the mediocre crowd and join the likes of ARTISTS like Gorilla, Insomniac, Naughty Dog, etc. Have you seen how excited every PS3 owner gets with anything they create. PS3 owners can't wait to spend their hard earned money on their next game, becasue we know what to expect...a great experience and NO EXCUSES. Keep your crappy game...I won't spend another dime on lazy programming. I have a collection of subpar (hurried) games for both my 360 and PS3 (mostly 360), this and future id products won't be in it. I'll be patient and select from the really GREAT games, which lately have been mostly PS3 exclusives. Imagine that, the best games around, from the developers that took the time to learn to program the PS3...and PS3 owners will be going back to THEM for years too.
Unless it's completely unplayable, I'll still get it for the PS3. I don't have the 360 online so there'd be no point in getting it and I never notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps. If it moves when I want it to move and shoots at what I'm aiming at, then that's good enough for me.
So what you are really saying is that you found another LAZY company that cannot properly program the PS3, right?
Carmack said: "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," ... Don't try and fool us man. That might work for the Teenies, but not me. It's funny Carmack, how do the other REALLY, REALLY great developers do it for the PS3 and come out with TRULLY SPECTACULAR products? Or is it just that you guys want to take the easy and cheaper road...it's all about the quick and easy $$$$$. Go ahead take NO risks to make a stellar product. Pride in your work means nothing anymore. Why not try and stand out of the mediocre crowd and join the likes of ARTISTS like Gorilla, Insomniac, Naughty Dog, etc. Have you seen how excited every PS3 owner gets with anything they create. PS3 owners can't wait to spend their hard earned money on their next game, becasue we know what to expect...a great experience and NO EXCUSES. Keep your crappy game...I won't spend another dime on lazy programming. I have a collection of subpar (hurried) games for both my 360 and PS3 (mostly 360), this and future id products won't be in it. I'll be patient and select from the really GREAT games, which lately have been mostly PS3 exclusives. Imagine that, the best games around, from the developers that took the time to learn to program the PS3...and PS3 owners will be going back to THEM for years too.
Hey look, another "brand-new" user who's first post happens to be an almost-exact repost of something that "Capsule_Toy" posted in this very thread.
Game development costs money. If John Carmack is joining the rest of the developers who have been saying it's going to take them longer to get the same performance out of the PS3 than they can get from the 360 right now, then John Carmack is basically saying that the PS3 version of Rage is going to cost more to develop than the 360 version.
It doesn't make much sense to spend more on developing the product that is inevitably going to sell less units, does it?
You should take your (pleasantly playable) 30fps and be grateful.
How embarrassing if the Mac version runs at a higher framerate than the PS3!
Seems I agree with one Sonyfanboy... yes, I'd rather have 60 frames a second and four discs, than one disc and 30 frames. It's no more inconvenient as making a drink, visiting the toilet, grabbing a bite to eat, plugging in the controller to recharge, or turning the lights on. All of which can happen within a gaming session, but I guess the PS3 does all that for you!
I remember a couple of years back after playing Modern Warfare, then going back to Rainbow Six (which ran at 30) it was unbareable, totally unplayable. I wouldn't worry though id will get a few more frames out of that Playstation.
I won't be getting this for either xbox or ps3 so I don't really care just can't stand these stupid trouble causing storys. EA manage just fine with multi platform releases so do Activision and Epic even Crapcom (yeah yeah its intentional) and Ubisoft just the old pc big boys like Valve ID and Bethesda are the ones that let people down and blame the hardware when its actually their faults should have stuck to pcs I say.
Also this article shows how lazy Carmack is in regards to programming and putting the effort in, other developers have shown that they can get a fast framerate coupled with amazing graphics/physics/AI and sound out of the console in tandem. Blaming the low fps on the PS3 itself is just ignorant, and exposes his laziness. There are workarounds and methods to fix this obstacles.
I'll keep an eye out for the game that you're releasing. I imagine it must be as groundbreaking as Doom.
valve actually cant get a working ps3 game up and running thats even acceptable.
they should both stick to their pc roots - the 360 only comes off better because it is a pc, made by pc company microsoft.
carmacks a pc guy through and through - now only cashing in because consoles are where the profits are at and pc gaming isnt popular anymore. the whore.
ps3 is getting better for devs all the time, naughty dog says there is now more memory as the OS has been shrunk in an update. 360 is forced to work with direct x because its a pc.
he has decades of practice on the pc and has the cheek to slate a console before hes even put a game out on one.
Its interesting from a technical standpoint that they are having trouble running the PS3 version at a solid 30fps when the x360 is managing 60. Huge difference there although 30 is perfectly playable.
Another note, dont call Carmack an idiot. This guy used to sell high end PC's with his engines. They where always a big leap and other companies just looked on disbelief (or licensed whatever tech he was selling at the time)
Personally I will be playing the real version *PC cough, pc* ..... well if its any good. Doom 3 sucked
All this crap about "Lazy" devs lazy is when you can't be bothered doing anything, or something easy.
There's nothing Lazy about not spending EXTRA time wrestling with a needlessly complex console architechture.
And so what if the 360 is a PC? It's weird to me how people seem to use that as a negative thing. I don't think anyone with a clue minds a PC in a box, at the front end it's as much of a console as the PS3 is.
About the 4 disc thing. It just proves how some PS3 fanboys are so unwilling to accept any technical shortcomings the console has. You would rather have 1 disc and 30fps? Really???? How ridiculous. How long are you going to be playing the game for? 12 hours + and you would rather have 12 hour of inferior performance for the sake of 20 seconds of disc swapping? Yeah, ok.
Carmack is probably smarter than anyone posting on here, and lets face it most of the devs that do "amazing" things with PS3 are either heavily supported/owned by Sony or are under the umbrella of massive publishers e.g. Activision who have money to waste spending more time on PS3.
Like the PS2 all the best quality games will be near the end of the consoles life span.
Just i'ts annoying to see all these developer bitching about everything these days.
I'm not only talking about PS3 Devs but 360 Devs, the could squeeze so much more out of the PS3 and this will show once one actual Devoted Developer takes the right amount of time into their product, Honestly they should do their homework and study PS3 architecture before they start on the PS3 and then make slanders.
i dunno. Naughty Dog, Polyphony Digital and Guerilla have all shown what the PS3 is capable of (graphically at least). until i see a developer make a non-PC game that looks and runs better than either of the aforementioned three developer's games (those being Uncharted 2, KZ2 and GT5 Prologue), i'll continue with the inclination that it's more the developer and less the hardware in the case of Rage.
i'm sure Carmack is a wizard with the PC and the 360, but he has admitted plenty in the past that he prefers those systems. that pretty much throws objectivity (and any hardened intent on his part to maximize the PS3 to its fullest potential) clean out the window.
This does make me laugh,why would a games publisher say that a multi format potential blockbuster game runs quicker on one system than the other? The reason....is because the publishing company has hyped the game and suddenly realised the xbox version will be finished before the playstation,as the two systems have different coding and writing systems. It is common knowledge that the playstation is more complex and indepth to program,realising this at the last minute the games publisher has come up with the lame excuse that it may run slower on the playstation........but the truth is they need your hard earned wonga sooner rather than later as thet are too lazy to finish both formats at the same time.....GREEEED!
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On what? Up there it says 60fps for the PC
yep, thats with vsynch on,vsynch off = most likely 100+FPS average.
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one likes a willy waver.
lol,its a bit epenis alright, but just thought id mention it lol, besides most PC versions of console games that are decent enough conversions/ports run like crazy and with higher gfx settings, my 2 year old PC ran DMC4 at 85FPS average, 130FPS in a lot of places on ultra settings.
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Three cheers for the PC! Hurrah! Hurrah! HURRAAAAH!
valve actually cant get a working ps3 game up and running thats even acceptable.
they should both stick to their pc roots - the 360 only comes off better because it is a pc, made by pc company microsoft.
carmacks a pc guy through and through - now only cashing in because consoles are where the profits are at and pc gaming isnt popular anymore. the whore.
ps3 is getting better for devs all the time, naughty dog says there is now more memory as the OS has been shrunk in an update. 360 is forced to work with direct x because its a pc.
he has decades of practice on the pc and has the cheek to slate a console before hes even put a game out on one.
Is this the same direct x, that has taken gaming to a new level, over the past 10 years, the same direct x that has introduced a standard for developers, one where 3 of the biggest companies in the world, amdati, intel and nvidia do everything to make sure hardware can support it.
the ps3 no doubt has power, its just been bottlenecked and apart from taking the top of the bottle off with a sharp knife, it's gonna be bottle necked for it's lifespan.
If the world's best programmer says it's slow and behind the rest and says the gpu is slower and the cpu's are the same but you have to come up with special code to get round the ps3 system, then, who are we to judge, we aren't programmers.
He is, he made wolfenstien 3d, doom 1, 2 and 3, quake 1,2,3, he indirectly made through his engines half-life, duex ex, duex ex 2, thief, system shock 2 and countless others his engines have powered, all because the guy knows how to get the best out of any hardware.
you must be the sort of person who decides to get to the top of the 120 storey building, by building the staircase and then walking up it. he's the sort of guy, who will walk round the corner and take the lift. That is the difference with PS3 and PC, 360, sure you can get an end result with both, one just requires super human levels to achive.
Its time for PS3 owners (who dont have both consoles) to accept. You purchased the wrong console. Fine, if you are happy with it, but all this comparison to 360 is getting more boring every day. You are constantly having to defend the thing against wave after wave of articles that clearly show it isnt the super duper messiah that you think it is!
But hey, I heard a rumor that there is a game called Agent coming out???? I could be wrong but i am sure I heard someone in here mentioning it??
yep, thats with vsynch on,vsynch off = most likely 100+FPS average.
No, Rage runs the game code at 60hz and will most likely lock the frame rate to 60 also. It's actually completely pointless to render any more frames since it will just be the same information drawn more than once. You get 60 "snapshots" of the world, drawing more than 60 frames will just be a copy of one of those 60 "snapshots".
yep, thats with vsynch on,vsynch off = most likely 100+FPS average.
No, Rage runs the game code at 60hz and will most likely lock the frame rate to 60 also. It's actually completely pointless to render any more frames since it will just be the same information drawn more than once. You get 60 "snapshots" of the world, drawing more than 60 frames will just be a copy of one of those 60 "snapshots".
60Hz is the vertical refresh rate, there is only 1 other game that does something like what you mention, Battlefield 2 wont render any more frames than 100FPS, any framerate above that is just showing duplicates. I highly doubt that Rage is gonna do the same and with an even lower framerate before duplication, no other id game has ever done this and there is no reason to implement it other than for online play to cut down on network activity, i.e. 100FPS for BF2 requires a ping of 10ms to see visually what the server is seeing to determine hits etc.
Ive very few games that dont play at 80FPS+ and i dont see this being any different
With lower game sales expectations and greater difficulty in making a title on par with the 360, it makes me wonder why more developers just don't stop wasting their time with the ps3 and make it for the pc and 360. Valve did well doing this with Left 4 Dead, ID should do the same.
yep, thats with vsynch on,vsynch off = most likely 100+FPS average.
No, Rage runs the game code at 60hz and will most likely lock the frame rate to 60 also. It's actually completely pointless to render any more frames since it will just be the same information drawn more than once. You get 60 "snapshots" of the world, drawing more than 60 frames will just be a copy of one of those 60 "snapshots".
60Hz is the vertical refresh rate, there is only 1 other game that does something like what you mention, Battlefield 2 wont render any more frames than 100FPS, any framerate above that is just showing duplicates. I highly doubt that Rage is gonna do the same and with an even lower framerate before duplication, no other id game has ever done this and there is no reason to implement it other than for online play to cut down on network activity, i.e. 100FPS for BF2 requires a ping of 10ms to see visually what the server is seeing to determine hits etc.
Ive very few games that dont play at 80FPS+ and i dont see this being any different
The 60Hz I mentioned is the number of updates the game engine do per second. They are doing this for Rage and they did this with Doom 3. Many games separate the game engine from the renderer, so the renderer can do lots of FPS, that's of course not the same as the game itself updates the game code that many times, but just that they are separated. But id has both the game engine and the renderer locked together.
yep, thats with vsynch on,vsynch off = most likely 100+FPS average.
No, Rage runs the game code at 60hz and will most likely lock the frame rate to 60 also. It's actually completely pointless to render any more frames since it will just be the same information drawn more than once. You get 60 "snapshots" of the world, drawing more than 60 frames will just be a copy of one of those 60 "snapshots".
60Hz is the vertical refresh rate, there is only 1 other game that does something like what you mention, Battlefield 2 wont render any more frames than 100FPS, any framerate above that is just showing duplicates. I highly doubt that Rage is gonna do the same and with an even lower framerate before duplication, no other id game has ever done this and there is no reason to implement it other than for online play to cut down on network activity, i.e. 100FPS for BF2 requires a ping of 10ms to see visually what the server is seeing to determine hits etc.
Ive very few games that dont play at 80FPS+ and i dont see this being any different
The 60Hz I mentioned is the number of updates the game engine do per second. They are doing this for Rage and they did this with Doom 3. Many games separate the game engine from the renderer, so the renderer can do lots of FPS, that's of course not the same as the game itself updates the game code that many times, but just that they are separated. But id has both the game engine and the renderer locked together.
How many more times does it need saying? The GPU (the bit that draws the pixels) is considerably better on the 360. It's an unavoidable fact.
The GPU (the bit that handles the polygons, and vertex shading) is considerably faster on the 360. It's an unavoidable fact.
Any game that is running at 60 on the PS3, could comfortably be matched on the 360 with rendering performance to spare, so with better AA, or a higher resolution (ergo, using more pixels).
To match the vertex rate of the 360, you have to "waste" CELL performance, processing all your geometry so the GPU only gets the minimum possible amount of data to handle. This means you're effectively making lots of the GPU silicon redundant. (Sony should really have made a custom GPU (like the GS on on the PS2) which does NO back face culling / occlusion etc, and added more pixel pipelines or on-board RAM to get it's pixel performance up instead.
If Sony had stuck to their plans and used 2 CELLs, they would undoubtedly have produced the monster they hyped the machine up to be. It would have cost a fortune and would probably still be nearer £500, but it would have blown the 360 away.
Dropping to 1 CELL and an off-the-shelf GPU in order to be affordable, has resulted in a machine that has to effectively waste the CELL it's got making up for GPU shortcomings compared to the Xenos. In a word, it's gimped.
Except that it doesn't work in the latest patch, but any frames over 60FPS will typically be duplicates and hence there is no real performance benefit.
John Carmack of id software: "The game tic simulation, including player movement, runs at 60hz, so if it rendered any faster, it would just be rendering identical frames. A fixed tic rate removes issues like Quake 3 had, where some jumps could only be made at certain framerates. In Doom, the same player inputs will produce the same motions, no matter what the framerate is."
I own both consoles, so I am not a fanboy. You guys have not done thorough research. Carmack does in fact make this statement, however that is not the full story. In the August issue of game informer he states they took longer to learn the ps3 hardware, but now that they have the logistics under control, the PS3 gives the developer more head room in terms of graphical quality. So he said that being early in development the xbox runs the game smoother, but he expects the end result of the ps3 game to perform slightly better, and only on one blu-ray instead of 2 ultra compressed dvds.
I like all the 4 paragraph comments about how "lazy" developers are and how they won't take the time to do it right on the PS3. Time is money dumbasses so take you 30FPSs and deal with it. Sony shouldn't have expected developers to re-invent the f**king wheel just to program for a console nobody wanted in the firsy place. Please drop the price of the PS3 so I can see how much Sony loses next year. Arrogant lying aholes are getting theirs this gen AND I LIKE IT!
oh bugger, did i miss the sony fanboy rage (not the game, in general) train? oh, i was looking forward to what petty excuses they have this time.
I like both my 360 and PS3, and my gaming PC (the wii can bite it, overpriced toy), but sony fanboys are the scum of the earth, they just won't see reason.
Unfortuntely some people have such blind brand loyalty to Sony they will deny anything thats anti-PS3. When Carmacks labelled as lazy, or not talented enough, you just have to give up.
The 360 was designed by a company in too much of a rush to get it out (I'm on my second in a year). The PS3 was designed by an arrogant company who made some bad design choices, and extraordinary PR gaffes. Thank god for PC.
He is, he made wolfenstien 3d, doom 1, 2 and 3, quake 1,2,3, he indirectly made through his engines half-life, duex ex, duex ex 2, thief, system shock 2 and countless others his engines have powered, all because the guy knows how to get the best out of any hardware.
Before somebody comes in and tries to declare that your whole statement must be wrong because a supporting tiny detail near the end of your post is slightly incorrect, I am going to politely point out that the Deus Ex games ran on versions of Epic's Unreal Engine, and Thief and System Shock 2 both ran on Looking Glass' Dark engine.
But apart form that, yes. Carmack's probably _the_ technical genius when it comes to 3D game engines. If he says something on the subject, then get out the chisel and the stone tablets - it's canon.
I own both consoles, so I am not a fanboy. You guys have not done thorough research. Carmack does in fact make this statement, however that is not the full story. In the August issue of game informer he states they took longer to learn the ps3 hardware, but now that they have the logistics under control, the PS3 gives the developer more head room in terms of graphical quality. So he said that being early in development the xbox runs the game smoother, but he expects the end result of the ps3 game to perform slightly better, and only on one blu-ray instead of 2 ultra compressed dvds.
dude, CVG is a 360 fanboy cesspool. you will get a more logical reponse to your statement if you would've just spoken it to your computer screen.
Except that it doesn't work in the latest patch, but any frames over 60FPS will typically be duplicates and hence there is no real performance benefit.
John Carmack of id software: "The game tic simulation, including player movement, runs at 60hz, so if it rendered any faster, it would just be rendering identical frames. A fixed tic rate removes issues like Quake 3 had, where some jumps could only be made at certain framerates. In Doom, the same player inputs will produce the same motions, no matter what the framerate is."
Well fair enough ill accept that( i never had a gfx card capable of maxing Doom 3 on release so i was never in a position to investigate beyond that at the time ), however in the context of this article and the usual $hit that goes on here between the console heads, even if its duplicate frames that are rendered, theyre still being rendered and a decent enough PC is just capable of rendering way beyond what the 360 is capable of, besides not many of us have 120Hz LCD's to take advantage of it, its just that fact that its capable of it
That's bad news for the PS3 version. But... is this game going to be any good? Any point prematurely defending a piece of technology when the game hasn't been released yet? ID's last set of games (Doom3, Quake4, Quake wars, etc) have been average to say the least. Yawn fests with non-inspiring level design... oh but the lighting was fab ooo and it shifted zillions of polys. Release a triple AAA game and back up your statement is all I'm asking.
Together with the fact that 'locking' a framerate at 60fps for example doesn't actually lock it....it's simply a maximum so that any additional processing power that is available from the CPU or GPU can be pushed into the areas that need the extra power.
What no-one has mentioned is that with a 60fps maximum, it also means that with a lot happening on the screen there is nothing to say that the minimum framerate won't be halved when everything gets busy on screen.....and here we have the problem with the PS3.
When/If it gets really bad and the framerate takes a dip due to what is happening on the screen, the PS3 could easily drop to 15fps momentarily and that will be stutter-central....the 360 on the other hand could drop to a minimum of 30fps and would go un-noticed.
Either way, I couldn't care less...like lmmmiffnnn I'll be playing it at well over 100fps at resolutions way above true HD.
hahaha... I love these personal attacks just because someone has a different console. It's not difficult to see how people of different colour, country, religion, etc end up killing each other! I don't even care for this game, and I'm pretty sure forum debates centred around it will prove to be more entertaining!
atrimus, if you believe CVG is a 360 fanboy cesspool.. er.. bye then!
Velocitar... hahaha. There's always one c**ky sod who knows more than the previous forum poster! Poor little TheHun1 was probably feeling really proud of his list 'til you highlighted all his errors.
eltonbird... Beneath all your superior knowledge and technical understanding about the PS3, your final thought was the funniest thing I've read on the 'PS3 is sh*te' debate. So to recap your own simple but effective phrase... it's gimped!
This does make me laugh,why would a games publisher say that a multi format potential blockbuster game runs quicker on one system than the other? The reason....is because the publishing company has hyped the game and suddenly realised the xbox version will be finished before the playstation,as the two systems have different coding and writing systems. It is common knowledge that the playstation is more complex and indepth to program,realising this at the last minute the games publisher has come up with the lame excuse that it may run slower on the playstation........but the truth is they need your hard earned wonga sooner rather than later as thet are too lazy to finish both formats at the same time.....GREEEED!
I own both consoles, so I am not a fanboy. You guys have not done thorough research. Carmack does in fact make this statement, however that is not the full story. In the August issue of game informer he states they took longer to learn the ps3 hardware, but now that they have the logistics under control, the PS3 gives the developer more head room in terms of graphical quality. So he said that being early in development the xbox runs the game smoother, but he expects the end result of the ps3 game to perform slightly better, and only on one blu-ray instead of 2 ultra compressed dvds.
I own both consoles, so I am not a fanboy. You guys have not done thorough research. Carmack does in fact make this statement, however that is not the full story. In the August issue of game informer he states they took longer to learn the ps3 hardware, but now that they have the logistics under control, the PS3 gives the developer more head room in terms of graphical quality. So he said that being early in development the xbox runs the game smoother, but he expects the end result of the ps3 game to perform slightly better, and only on one blu-ray instead of 2 ultra compressed dvds.
dude, CVG is a 360 fanboy cesspool. you will get a more logical reponse to your statement if you would've just spoken it to your computer screen.
Such a nice cesspool it is too. Too bad the radioactive, single-minded, nonsensical SDF fanboys float around in it like wet turds.
I thinks it's interesting how the Sony Fan boys rush to claim that Jon Carmack is a lazy developer. Jon Carmack, the father of First Person shooters, the man who managed to get Wolfenstein 3-D to run smoothly on a 20 mhz 386, the man who stunned the world with Doom then turned around to stun the world with Quake, Jon Carmack the man who is widely considered to be the best video game programmer in the world is being called lazy. Then you guys have the audacity to say the Id isn't willing to put the time into the Rage engine. Well guess what, Rage has been in development for years, but unlike your precious Killzone 2 it's being developed for multiple platforms. Obviously making a multi platform game is more difficult than targeting a single platform, but it's really Sony's fault that they came up with the arcane architecture that they did. Quit tearing down some the best developers that have ever existed and ask Sony why even Jon Carmack seems to struggle with the PS3.
While it may be true that 360's GPU is more powerful, the CELL is supposed to compliment the RSX. I hope things get better with the PS3 version, but it appears that Id isn't doing it right on the PS3. If the CELL doesn't have enough resources to help out then it may be viewed as a big win for the 360 guys. If you're able to play even 10 hours on one disk, then it isn't really a big deal I think. That said, this "news" just says that the PS3 version is behind. If both were done, then some could scoff at the 20-30 FPS. That isn't the case. If the 360 version isn't close to being done, and the PS3 is even further from being done, then they can optimize further. If it ends up being at about 40 FPS(consistent), it is quite nice. Maybe it will even get to 60, as with the other versions, come release version
LONG STORY SHORT - PS3 VERSION ISN'T AS COMPLETE GUYS! ^_^
I thinks it's interesting how the Sony Fan boys rush to claim that Jon Carmack is a lazy developer. Jon Carmack, the father of First Person shooters, the man who managed to get Wolfenstein 3-D to run smoothly on a 20 mhz 386, the man who stunned the world with Doom then turned around to stun the world with Quake, Jon Carmack the man who is widely considered to be the best video game programmer in the world is being called lazy. Then you guys have the audacity to say the Id isn't willing to put the time into the Rage engine. Well guess what, Rage has been in development for years, but unlike your precious Killzone 2 it's being developed for multiple platforms. Obviously making a multi platform game is more difficult than targeting a single platform, but it's really Sony's fault that they came up with the arcane architecture that they did. Quit tearing down some the best developers that have ever existed and ask Sony why even Jon Carmack seems to struggle with the PS3.
I completely agree, it really is beyond ridiculous. Carmack has been called "The Human Decoder" by some. He has proven time and time again how brilliant he is. Hell, he makes rockets for attempted space travel in his spare time. It's laughable that there is not just one but an entire group of ignorant people who are shouting about how "lazy" or "incompetent" the man is when they clearly know nothing about him.
On most tracks, maybe all, going around corners with a few cars in front of you, will see the framerate slow down quite a bit, with added screen tearing.
Unless they overhauled the game engine considerably since I last played it, I can't see it being any different now.
Anyone blaming Carmack for being a lazy programmer (the "bad workman blames his tools" quote, for example)needs to get a little context on the guy. There aren't many developers in the world where if they say things like this they're probably worth listening to.
He's by far the most candid studio head when it comes to technical details on development of game engines (just had a look at his iPhone dev diaries) and he's not a one trick pony who's out of their comfort zone when not using the DirectX API (infact I believe even iD's most recent PC games still support OpenGL). If he says the rasteriser is inefficient, it probably is.
Anyway- note he didn't say they couldn't optimise the threading/job handling, he just said they hadn't figured it out yet. PS3 owners can probably trust the man who pretty much pioneered true 3D engines.
Yea people who are saying that Carmack is lazy are idiots. He IS a PC programmer all his life after all and RAGE was developed as a PC game first and foremost and X360 being basically a PC it's no wonder he's having trouble with the PS3 version. But I think he'll work it out somehow in the end. This is John Carmack we are talking about here...
Carmack has pretty much defined standards that the likes of naughty dog, guerilla and other ps3 devs follow so i dont know how anyone can knock him. i bet if you asked those devs what they think about carmack they would call him a legend and look up to him. it would also be interesting to know what the ps3 devs really think of the ps3 architecture without the pressure of not having to bow to sony's will.
all carmack said was the gpu in the ps3 is a little worse than the 360 but this fact has been known since launch, kz2 uses the cell to share rendering with the gpu because of this. the trouble with rage is it comes from a pc/360 background so its tough to retrofit it to the ps3. wasnt there an article saying a lot of devs lead on the ps3 now because of this fact a while ago? the likes of id and valve are unlikely to lead on the ps3 because of their roots in the PC industry and nowhere does it say rage will be compromised on the ps3.
I can understand they PS3 fan boys are miffed as the machine costs an arm and a leg and they are getting 2nd rate products. Don't blame developers, blame sony in their arrogance.
The talk about Carmack being lazy is ridiculous. He voiced his concerns about the PS3 way before it came out, he is a legend.
Even mass market products from EA have suffered on the PS3 compared to the 360.
woah. I go home and spend a night gaming and come back in the morning to this. Impressive i must say.
Starting to think theres some kind of age difference between the PS£ fanboys and the rest of us. Unless you were about 12 you'd know who John Carmack is and not be so bloody retarded as to call him lazy.
Now go away and learn some gaming history and come back. There wouldn't be your precious COD if it wasn't for this guy. In the sense that the guy was involved with pretty much every early fps made and the innovations to the genre brought with them.
But he also was part of the team that wrote the engine it runs on. And the Rage engine is the next iteration of said gaming engine.
just for those who dont know, games dont tend to get optimised at this stage of dev, so wait untill release and see what the Framerates are like on 360 and ps3
make up your f**king mind ID. a few months ago they said the ps3 version would be better now its the PC and 360 one which one is it? there just saying this s**t for PR stunts. and for the record being a PC programmer is allot like being a game developer. thats how Ed Boon got into the industry thats how allot of people got into making games, thats what im doing now.
If they aren't getting the framerate out of the PS3 because they're trying to run at the same res, with the same AA as the 360, and are drawing a lot of pixels, the only way they'll boost that is to drop the Res / AA on the PS3. Like many, many games do.
The engine's been in development across multiple formats for ages now, so to claim it's just unoptimised is going to be wide of the mark.
if he developed the versions seperate like criteron done with burnout, or IW done with CoD4, then it would be faring a lot better at this stage.
the port will need optimisation. the 360 version will be very close to the pc as it progesses.
he should shut his mouth unless 20-30fps is all he is going to be able to get out the ps3 in its final form. in which case i question his talent when 60fps on a ps3 shooter, with amazing graphics has already been proven.
woah. I go home and spend a night gaming and come back in the morning to this. Impressive i must say.
Starting to think theres some kind of age difference between the PS£ fanboys and the rest of us. Unless you were about 12 you'd know who John Carmack is and not be so bloody retarded as to call him lazy.
Now go away and learn some gaming history and come back. There wouldn't be your precious COD if it wasn't for this guy. In the sense that the guy was involved with pretty much every early fps made and the innovations to the genre brought with them.
But he also was part of the team that wrote the engine it runs on. And the Rage engine is the next iteration of said gaming engine.
Spot on MONKEY.
And hell, sounds like I missed a hell of an evening, still I'd rather spend time actually gaming or with my girlfriend when I'm not stuck at the office. I do wonder about the people who frequent games forums through the night... Shouldn't they be a) gaming or b) pursuing other interests in order to demonstrate they have lives?
Back to the topic - it's all very good being the "future of gaming" and all that bulls**t, but when one of the greatest programmers in the world needs the bloody enigma decoder to actually get half-decent performance out of the machine then its a sad state of affairs.
Amazing how EVERY developer is apparently lazy unless they are 1st party or working on a Sony exclusive release.
No third party game devs can apparently make sense of it unless they exclusively focus on the PS3 to the exclusion of PC and 360 versions. PC + 360 owners combined is a ridiculously larger demographic than PS3 owners and, particularly in the west, you are BOUND to get lazy ports or a lack of interest.
some of u guys must be really thick headed. Is rage going to be such an awesomely magnificent game that the many examples of multiplatform games being identical on both platforms should be ignored? Look at red faction, fight night 4, call of duty, fallout 3 etc etc. Why the massive performance difference between the ps3 and 360 version of THIS game?
Instead of thinking, you just resign yourself to considering carmack a god of 3D gaming. He has no limitations and years of working at the same thing has not burned him into a pc game designer.
I bet no-one bother to read this guys post
Posted by thelig32 I own both consoles, so I am not a fanboy. You guys have not done thorough research. Carmack does in fact make this statement, however that is not the full story. In the August issue of game informer he states they took longer to learn the ps3 hardware, but now that they have the logistics under control, the PS3 gives the developer more head room in terms of graphical quality. So he said that being early in development the xbox runs the game smoother, but he expects the end result of the ps3 game to perform slightly better, and only on one blu-ray instead of 2 ultra compressed dvds.
Well w/e. we will see when the game comes out what the truth is. Edge isnt to be trusted...
last time i checked there have been versions of every single ID game on practically every gaming device ever released. Saying ID and Carmack only do PC games (although admittedly thats where there games work best) is utter crap.
They should be apllauded for being able to get thier engines, which are 99% of the time far in advance of what the competition are working on working on consoles in the first place.
Which lets face it have always been technically less proficiant than a good gaming PC, but less hasstle. thus the trade off.
I was personally amazed witht the job they did on Doom 3 on the Xbox. They managed to wring graphics comparable with early 360 games out of it and still played perfectly well.
Also if you guys had read what carmack said he said that they haven't got the PS3 version up to speed yet. Meaning they are working on it.
I do fins it hilarious how on one thread the Sony guys you Rage as some kind of weapon in thier insane crusade against the 360 and now they are calling its chief programmer lazy. can you say hypocrite i knew you could.
The story as it appears on Edge. (quote) As part of our look at id’s new multiformat shooter-cum-driver Rage featured in the new issue of Edge, out in UK shops on Monday, we saw that the frame rate of the PS3 version currently lags some way behind the 360’s.
The 360 version matches the PC’s 60 FPS while the PS3’s frame rate runs at just 20-30 FPS. “The PS3 does lag a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it,” Carmack acknowledges.
“The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that’s where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3.”
He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”
“The work remaining is getting it locked so there’s never a dropped frame or a tear, but we’re confident that we’re going to get that.”
They showed a video of demo on Xbox 360 and PS3 months ago and both looked perfectly identical.
Sounds fishy to me - CVG stirs s**t up again?
basically you are right, fps doesnt impact in visual quality above a certain level. the ps3 version could actually have higher quality graphics which could be why the fps is lower. at the end of the day does it make a big difference if the quality is the same and both run smoothly? as long as the frame rate doesnt stutter i bet there will be no tangible difference.
everyone can calm down now as the article actually says he expect all verisons to run at the same speed, they just need to optimise on the ps3. its a shame this came out really as during dev of any game there will be times were performance isnt up to scratch but then the games arent in a release state.
Is this what that journalism degree got you? This? Three years studying the great reporters, and you end up writing this? That you are so ashamed, that there isn't even a proper byline.
You flame up, out of context, a single quote, purely to drive up traffic and one off ad dollar hits. When people point out how out of context and incorrect the story is, you update it, claiming to have received "new" information from Edge.
Everyone knows that Future Publishing own both Edge and CVG. There's either a complete lack of competence and due diligance at the organisation, that the writer didn't even check it out with a sister publication.
But more likely, is that accuracy doesn't matter, and as long as you can whore out those hits Daily Mail like in their inaccuracy, you'll get a nice bonus.
If I were Carmack, I would be even more incensed. Why would anyone speak to your blasted organisation, when all they end up doing is bastardising your own words to shill to Digg.
PC version for me! 60fps and no disk swapping after install!
I'm assuming 360 one will be installable...
4 DVDs? About 20gb to install.....Poor 20gb owners.
They can opt not to install, or they can upgrade! 20GB is fine to get a foothold with the 360, but despite the 120GB HDD being horribly overpriced, it's still cheaper than buying a new GFX card or upgrading your motherboard/processor to run the thing!
Don't get me wrong, I'd still be playing FPS on the PC if my 360 and laptop didn't do pretty much everything my rig used to do...
He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”
I'm sure he mentioned that months ago. Dunno why CVG brought the s**t up again. Slow day again?
He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”
I'm sure he mentioned that months ago. Dunno why CVG brought the s**t up again. Slow day again?
You do have a point you know. Could it be that trolls like STD_Grasshopper are knowing undercover pawns for Future Publishing's mighty Bathian empire and their crusade against Sony? Sitting in his pants in the bedsit above his parents council house, making money for his 50" tellys by fuelling the flames on Future's forums to generate ad revenue?
He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”
I'm sure he mentioned that months ago. Dunno why CVG brought the s**t up again. Slow day again?
You do have a point you know. Could it be that trolls like STD_Grasshopper are knowing undercover pawns for Future Publishing's mighty Bathian empire and their crusade against Sony? Sitting in his pants in the bedsit above his parents council house, making money for his 50" tellys by fuelling the flames on Future's forums to generate ad revenue?
He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”
I'm sure he mentioned that months ago. Dunno why CVG brought the s**t up again. Slow day again?
You do have a point you know. Could it be that trolls like STD_Grasshopper are knowing undercover pawns for Future Publishing's mighty Bathian empire and their crusade against Sony? Sitting in his pants in the bedsit above his parents council house, making money for his 50" tellys by fuelling the flames on Future's forums to generate ad revenue?
LMFAO
Well, I'm sure in reality he's a hugely well paid publishing executive who only appears to be a lobotomised retard because he's typing from an expensive (hire purchased) iPhone...
I thinks it's interesting how the Sony Fan boys rush to claim that Jon Carmack is a lazy developer. Jon Carmack, the father of First Person shooters, the man who managed to get Wolfenstein 3-D to run smoothly on a 20 mhz 386, the man who stunned the world with Doom then turned around to stun the world with Quake, Jon Carmack the man who is widely considered to be the best video game programmer in the world is being called lazy. Then you guys have the audacity to say the Id isn't willing to put the time into the Rage engine. Well guess what, Rage has been in development for years, but unlike your precious Killzone 2 it's being developed for multiple platforms. Obviously making a multi platform game is more difficult than targeting a single platform, but it's really Sony's fault that they came up with the arcane architecture that they did. Quit tearing down some the best developers that have ever existed and ask Sony why even Jon Carmack seems to struggle with the PS3.
I completely agree, it really is beyond ridiculous. Carmack has been called "The Human Decoder" by some. He has proven time and time again how brilliant he is. Hell, he makes rockets for attempted space travel in his spare time. It's laughable that there is not just one but an entire group of ignorant people who are shouting about how "lazy" or "incompetent" the man is when they clearly know nothing about him.
woah. I go home and spend a night gaming and come back in the morning to this. Impressive i must say.
Starting to think theres some kind of age difference between the PS£ fanboys and the rest of us. Unless you were about 12 you'd know who John Carmack is and not be so bloody retarded as to call him lazy.
Now go away and learn some gaming history and come back. There wouldn't be your precious COD if it wasn't for this guy. In the sense that the guy was involved with pretty much every early fps made and the innovations to the genre brought with them.
But he also was part of the team that wrote the engine it runs on. And the Rage engine is the next iteration of said gaming engine.
Spot on MONKEY.
And hell, sounds like I missed a hell of an evening, still I'd rather spend time actually gaming or with my girlfriend when I'm not stuck at the office. I do wonder about the people who frequent games forums through the night... Shouldn't they be a) gaming or b) pursuing other interests in order to demonstrate they have lives?
Back to the topic - it's all very good being the "future of gaming" and all that bulls**t, but when one of the greatest programmers in the world needs the bloody enigma decoder to actually get half-decent performance out of the machine then its a sad state of affairs.
Amazing how EVERY developer is apparently lazy unless they are 1st party or working on a Sony exclusive release.
No third party game devs can apparently make sense of it unless they exclusively focus on the PS3 to the exclusion of PC and 360 versions. PC + 360 owners combined is a ridiculously larger demographic than PS3 owners and, particularly in the west, you are BOUND to get lazy ports or a lack of interest.
In my defence I picked myself up off the couch late last night after a relaxing evening with freshly made sushi...only to take that classic "one last look online before going to bed" and before you know it an hour has passed.
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ya poor us. now i feel lieft out of the crowd
oh well i guess ill just have to deal with 100FPS on my PC, ohh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On what? Up there it says 60fps for the PC
doesnt work like tht man. on PC there is no limit to the performance you can get, it scales according to your hardware and settings and the game i guess. usually anything above 120fps is said to be super overkill and prob doesnt render but for 95% of people its 60.
tbh 30 frames isnt that bad at all and is totally ok. most games you play on the consoles are running at 30fps and as long as people dont know this it appears that the game runs silky smooth for them.
btw guys dont 4get they said they had to tone down the gfx fidelity on the 360 version. at least they said tht before.
He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”
I'm sure he mentioned that months ago. Dunno why CVG brought the s**t up again. Slow day again?
You do have a point you know. Could it be that trolls like STD_Grasshopper are knowing undercover pawns for Future Publishing's mighty Bathian empire and their crusade against Sony? Sitting in his pants in the bedsit above his parents council house, making money for his 50" tellys by fuelling the flames on Future's forums to generate ad revenue?
I don't know about you but I don't receive any pop-up ads when I visit this website - not from work nor at homne and I sure as hell don't click on any of the advertisement banners.
While the frame rate is s**t and Carmack is talking about technical problems with the PS3, all the 360 owners can quite freely crow at them. IF the PS3 version ends up p**sing all over the 360 version, then Sony fans can start taking the p**s out of xbots.
Only people who have a right to laugh all along are the PC owners... Provided this doesn't require a "ground up" rebuild of their PCs by relase!
Is this what that journalism degree got you? This? Three years studying the great reporters, and you end up writing this? That you are so ashamed, that there isn't even a proper byline.
You flame up, out of context, a single quote, purely to drive up traffic and one off ad dollar hits. When people point out how out of context and incorrect the story is, you update it, claiming to have received "new" information from Edge.
Everyone knows that Future Publishing own both Edge and CVG. There's either a complete lack of competence and due diligance at the organisation, that the writer didn't even check it out with a sister publication.
But more likely, is that accuracy doesn't matter, and as long as you can whore out those hits Daily Mail like in their inaccuracy, you'll get a nice bonus.
If I were Carmack, I would be even more incensed. Why would anyone speak to your blasted organisation, when all they end up doing is bastardising your own words to shill to Digg.
Three solutions:
1: Don't buy Future Publishing mags. They're thin, over-priced, they treat their staff like crap, and anything that appears in one of their mags that's actually related to gaming is normally just a mere accidental side-effect of them trying to make as much money from advertisers as possible.
2: Use Firefox with Ad-block Plus to browse the site. That way, not only do you save on your bandwidth and not only do Future not profit from putting flame-bate like this up every day to drive traffic, but most importantly, you'll actually be able to see the damn site without all of those crap pop-ups.
3: Don't get your news from CVG. They mostly copy/paste it from a few other websites anyway, and anything of worth that actually hits here first will be found somewhere else within minutes, and normally in a more accurate and better sourced form.
The only good that this site serves is to come and wind up the unfailingly insecure fanboys who, by a glance at their behaviour, could easily be mistaken for having accidentally stapled their own scrotum to one of the sides in Console War VII.
Oh, and PC users aren't in anyway feeling smug about Rage, because Carmack's already gone on record as saying it's a "console game that's been designed from the ground up for console controllers", and all as PC owners know all too well, "Console Game" is usually an industry euphemism for "Dumbed Down Piece of Crap". (See Deus Ex 2, Civ Rev, etc. x100 for examples.)
While the frame rate is s**t and Carmack is talking about technical problems with the PS3, all the 360 owners can quite freely crow at them. IF the PS3 version ends up p**sing all over the 360 version, then Sony fans can start taking the p**s out of xbots.
Only people who have a right to laugh all along are the PC owners... Provided this doesn't require a "ground up" rebuild of their PCs by relase!
Why do you think I love my gaming PC (amongst other reasons)?
Firstly, Carmack is a frickin' GOD in gaming terms, so all you prepubescent PS3 stroking fanboys, either give a valid reason why he is 'an idiot' (sigh...) or STFU.
If you don't know that the PS3 is a pig to program for, then do a little research into the black box sitting under your table before slating one of the genuine pioneers of this industry. Cretins. Everyone (bar you, apparently) knows PS3's architecture is such that it makes it an absolute ball ache to get the most out of. That's nothing to do with the power it has.
Carmack never said he couldn't get 60fps out of it, just that it was a challenge compared to 360, a fact that is validated by pretty much any developer who has developed multi-platform.
Seriously, do any of you PS3 fanboys actually READ? And before you go all Human Torch and 'flame on', I have both machines, I'm not biased towards any platform. Actually I have all 3, but the Wii doesn't count, especially in this argument.
CVG did NOT include the whole quote. " Carmack told Edge "The 360 version matches the PC's 60 fps,But the textures on many surfaces currently flick visibly between resolutions as you move toward and away from them"
The article is another article just to make people not to buy the ps3 version.
These sites should have emphasised this a little more, rather than misleading people.
But i guess that what website like your site do, you mislead people on purpose just to make hits on you stupid site, "Anti PS3 and pro 360" by bashing the PS3 and not showing the cons on the 360 "the Texture problems" i hope both problems on ps3 and 360 get fixed. fanboy sites like Your site and Gameradar and TVG should get banned from the gaming industry.
LIES LIES MORE LIES AND DECEIT! I'M NOT HAVING IT.
Any game that is running at 60 on the PS3, could comfortably be matched on the 360 with rendering performance to spare, so with better AA, or a higher resolution (ergo, using more pixels).
To match the vertex rate of the 360, you have to "waste" CELL performance, processing all your geometry so the GPU only gets the minimum possible amount of data to handle. This means you're effectively making lots of the GPU silicon redundant. (Sony should really have made a custom GPU (like the GS on on the PS2) which does NO back face culling / occlusion etc, and added more pixel pipelines or on-board RAM to get it's pixel performance up instead.
"Could" is so much the key word. It depends very much on the game, design and who is responsible for writing it. I could cite you a number of games where the PS3 runs at an equivalent / superior resolution + frame rate. Off the top of my head, Virtua Fighter 5 is one such example where the PS3 has a superior resolution (the X360 version was later than the PS3 as well). Namco's Ridge Racer 6 on X360 Vs Ridge Racer 7 on PS3 is another comparison where again the PS3 is better. Just to show I am not biased, everyone knows Ghostbusters on PS3 has textures at 1/4 res compared with the X360 version.
So then... Could? Yes, could, but not necessarily DOES or WILL.
The X360 can get AA at much less cost / expense in many cases thanks to the fact it has 2xAA and 4xAA built into the H/W. The X360 also has a horz + vert upscaler, while the PS3 only introduced horz upscaling in firmware v1.8 (n.b. It has no vert upscaler). Some programmers might like to implement 2xMSAA themselves, others will make use of the hardware QC routines on the PS3 and others won't bother implementing any AA whatsoever.
I would not use the term "waste" as you have. The CELL has multiple SPU's - attributed especially to different tasks. Making use of SPU's that are dedicated to specific tasks is "useful" - not wasteful. Barring his own knowledge, expertise, intelligence and willingness to adapt, there is NOTHING stopping a programmer from maximising the RSX's capabilities whilst also making good use of the CELL's SPU's.
Yes, a programmer could use a SPU to manage backface culling, but lets not forget that the X360 still has to manage backface culling - even if it's an internal process. Developing for the X360 may be easier and I don't think anyone has ever contested that fact, but saying that the RSX is redundant silicon is barbaric nonsense.
In a word, it's gimped.
Gimped compared to what? Consider PC hardware and ANY console you choose to compare it to. All consoles are "gimped". You're paying less money for less capable hardware. If you want cutting or bleeding edge hardware, buy a PC. Anyone arguing their console is THE BEST and any other is "gimped" deserves a dominatrix bitch slap!
Unfortuntely some people have such blind brand loyalty to Sony they will deny anything thats anti-PS3.
Unfortunately some people CHOOSE TO BE anti-PS3. What is it exactly *you* hope to gain? Perhaps you are also anti-PS2, anti-dreamcast, anti-PSP, anti-DS, anti-iPhone... They're all "gimped" by todays PC hardware standards, but that doesn't mean they don't have useful or entertaining applications. People still buy them!
dude, CVG is a 360 fanboy cesspool.
QFT
In the August issue of game informer he (Carmack) states they took longer to learn the ps3 hardware, but now that they have the logistics under control...<snip>
What makes anyone here think that i.d. have the logistics of the PS3 "under control", or that i.d. know exactly how to best make use of the PS3 hardware? Consider that other games already do and upcoming releases such as Uncharted 2 & God of War 3 may look better and run better than Rage.
I thinks it's interesting how the Sony Fan boys rush to claim that Jon Carmack is a lazy developer. Jon Carmack, the father of First Person shooters, the man who managed to get Wolfenstein 3-D to run smoothly on a 20 mhz 386, the man who stunned the world <snip>
Those of you who are crazy enough to blow Carmack's trumpet about :-
(a) How clever he is...
or
(b) How lazy he is...
... have clearly been fooled into thinking John Carmack is responsible for programming the X360, PC and PS3 versions of Rage. Carmack was jointly responsible for coding the original i.d. tech 5 (mega-texture) PC BASED routines that have already been used in Quake Wars. Rage isn't being coded exclusively by Carmack for PC or X360, let alone PS3. Carmack is actually applying himself in more of a technical consultant role these days - sometimes hands on. What makes anyone here think that i.d. programmers - even Carmack - knows how to best make use of the PS3? Even if Carmack does know how best to make use of the PS3, what makes anyone here think that i.d. tech 5 is compatible?
How you code for a console / PC is based on several aspects...
1. The API's (and libraries) available at the time you commenced development. 2. The API's available at the time you're already well into development (too late to change). 3. The technical ideas & routines you have developed already - or have in mind to attempt. 4. Your interpretation of the hardware design, how it works, how to get the best out of it.
None of the points above are to do with being "lazy". Game development is run to a budget + timescale, just like any other project. Different people have different ideas and can identify better or different ways to exploit hardware. The fact the PS3 is very different to a PC hasn't done i.d. any favours. Asking Sony & Naughty Dog for help is nothing to be ashamed of - but you should ask whether some programmers just prefer to do things their own way.
Stop bitching about it.
Ever play GT5? That runs at a solid 60FPS.
No it doesn't...
I contest that with evidence... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQGlbGaQd5g
Again this is another example that certain elements within the gaming media are either biased or just plain corrupt.
Mention the problems with the PS3 version yet fail to mention that the developer is confident it will be rectified. At the same time neglect to mention the 360 version is also having issues.
The only question left to me is wether this is a case of fanboyism in the media or a sinister negative media campaign payed for by a certain competitor.
With the amount of these articles/reports I have seen while having 1st hand experience with MS regarding my job, the latter is looking increasingly more likely.
Is this what that journalism degree got you? This? Three years studying the great reporters, and you end up writing this? That you are so ashamed, that there isn't even a proper byline.
You flame up, out of context, a single quote, purely to drive up traffic and one off ad dollar hits. When people point out how out of context and incorrect the story is, you update it, claiming to have received "new" information from Edge.
Everyone knows that Future Publishing own both Edge and CVG. There's either a complete lack of competence and due diligance at the organisation, that the writer didn't even check it out with a sister publication.
But more likely, is that accuracy doesn't matter, and as long as you can whore out those hits Daily Mail like in their inaccuracy, you'll get a nice bonus.
If I were Carmack, I would be even more incensed. Why would anyone speak to your blasted organisation, when all they end up doing is bastardising your own words to shill to Digg.
Three solutions:
1: Don't buy Future Publishing mags. They're thin, over-priced, they treat their staff like crap, and anything that appears in one of their mags that's actually related to gaming is normally just a mere accidental side-effect of them trying to make as much money from advertisers as possible.
2: Use Firefox with Ad-block Plus to browse the site. That way, not only do you save on your bandwidth and not only do Future not profit from putting flame-bate like this up every day to drive traffic, but most importantly, you'll actually be able to see the damn site without all of those crap pop-ups.
3: Don't get your news from CVG. They mostly copy/paste it from a few other websites anyway, and anything of worth that actually hits here first will be found somewhere else within minutes, and normally in a more accurate and better sourced form.
The only good that this site serves is to come and wind up the unfailingly insecure fanboys who, by a glance at their behaviour, could easily be mistaken for having accidentally stapled their own scrotum to one of the sides in Console War VII.
Oh, and PC users aren't in anyway feeling smug about Rage, because Carmack's already gone on record as saying it's a "console game that's been designed from the ground up for console controllers", and all as PC owners know all too well, "Console Game" is usually an industry euphemism for "Dumbed Down Piece of Crap". (See Deus Ex 2, Civ Rev, etc. x100 for examples.)
Jesus, SunScramble, calnm down. If I want to play Civ, the Sims, Point and Clicks and most strategy/rpg games I'll use my PC. If I want to play pretty much any FPS/driver/3PS these days I'll use the 360. Except Crysis. Obviously. Too expensive to keep upgrading every 6 months when they make perfectly servicable versions for a static platform.
I dont really care what this guy says, he has not made a good game in a very long time.
Also what kind of idiot comes out and says "Hey guess what, Im making a PS3 game but to be honest I cant work the damn thing out!"
You want people to buy your game you clown! Lots of dev's have already shown just how much they can push out of the PS3 and if you cant match that then thats your problem. What is also now your problem, is that your have just turned 22 million people away from buying your game!
Im sorry if your programming knowledge only goes as far as windows based machines, but that just shows people that perhaps your not as good as you make yourself out to be John.
Unfortuntely some people have such blind brand loyalty to Sony they will deny anything thats anti-PS3.
Er, I think you've attributed someone else's words to me there.. I didn't say that.
The point I was making, is that if you're using the Cell to do jobs that would normally be done by any capable GPU, and you are duplicating functions of the GPU but doing them faster, that shows poor, unbalanced hardware design.
The fact that you have to use the cell this way to have any chance of equalling the visible polygon rate of the Xenos, it is a waste. It's not what the Cell was designed to do.
Behold his glorious return. welcome back your Lordship. 6 months of slumber must have gave you some terrible bedsores.
Bedsores aren't the only thing I picked up... I have acquired a XBox 360 (the Jasper sort).
... Which leads me to a tangent point. Anyone complaining about the "weighty feel" of KillZone 2 should try lifting the comparatively heavier lead-lined American fridge-freezer that is Gears 2. Roadie run is an excuse to blur the graphics and hide the problems. Gears 2 is flipping slow - and don't anyone give me any spin about it being "tactical".
All you X-Bot Live muppets banging on about how great cross game voice chat is forget to mention that the 8Khz sampling makes peoples voices sound like they're coming through a clock-radio on Long Wave next to a microwave oven. At least the PS3's voice chat with the official headset is far clearer by comparison.
The PS3 is quality compared to the X360. The X360 has grainy graphics & blatantly compressed audio compared with the PS3. NXE / dashboard alerts and achievement awards are all low resolution guff on a proper 1080p (1920x1080) display compared with the equivalent on PS3.
Frame rate is not everything. Of course, the X360 does have some advantages as well...
Carmack is only being honest when he says getting stuff running as fast on the PS3 CPU wise is a challenge, and takes time. No one can argue that point.
He also is quite specifically stating that the limiting factor on the PS3 version is pixel throughput. That's one thing that cannot be improved by clever use of the cell.
Of course the Rage team can get both versions to 60fps. But that will almost certainly be a lower screen resolution on the PS3. Just like the PC will be able to run at higher resolutions than the 360.
And will people just STOP saying "because game X runs at 1080p at 60, that game Y should be able to!" It's rubbish! Different genres and engines have different requirements and if Game X is running at a better res, it's always because other areas are doing much less.
last time i checked there have been versions of every single ID game on practically every gaming device ever released. Saying ID and Carmack only do PC games (although admittedly thats where there games work best) is utter crap.
Well, when it comes to Playstaion consoles, they "developed" only Final Doom for Playstation and then Wolfenstein 3D for PS3 with Rage and Doom 4 being in development at this moment. Not much experience with Sony platforms from what I see. And Carmack is and always was a PC programmer first and foremost.
Er, I think you've attributed someone else's words to me there.. I didn't say that.
Then the relevant commenter should feel obliged to feel remorse and not you.
The point I was making, is that if you're using the Cell to do jobs that would normally be done by any capable GPU, and you are duplicating functions of the GPU but doing them faster, that shows poor, unbalanced hardware design.
I like that - particularly as I have the same problem with it.
Compared to what? The iPhone? PSP? Nintendo Wii? DS? PS2? Dreamcast? XBox 1? Gamecube? Any other console besides the X360 that you choose to parade as superior? I don't think so.
Perhaps you consider the X360's GPU superior to the variety available for the PC? I should hope not.
X360 & PS3 games are often comparable, sometimes not. In some cases the X360 provides a better experience & in other cases - the PS3. Audio quality for example - is consistently better on the PS3. Frame rate is often comparable - sometimes better on X360, sometimes even a bit worse! The same can be said of texture quality - depending on the game and whether it pushes the system. I can't say that for every case one will be better than the other and neither should you. People should take each game on a case by case basis and if you own multiple consoles and a PC - as I do, purchase the best version - or whichever takes your fancy when you're a fan boy.
The fact that you have to use the cell this way to have any chance of equalling the visible polygon rate of the Xenos, it is a waste. It's not what the Cell was designed to do.
The only fact is - you can use the CELL however you like to obtain the results you're looking to achieve. It is up to you as a programmer to get there - do the best you can - or not. As for what the CELL was designed to do... Lets be clear, the star of the show on the PS3 is the CELL and has ALWAYS been advertised as such since the dawn of the chip. All of IBM and Sony's technical examples showing 100's of objects flying around, etc, were all done to show off the power of the CELL...
CVG did NOT include the whole quote : The 360 version matches the PC's 60 fps,But the textures on many surfaces currently flick visibly between resolutions as you move toward and away from them.
Proves that i.d. + the power of Carmack were unable to make the X360 version of Rage the definitive version.
Problems, problems...
People will argue the difference between frame rates, native resolutions and texture resolutions between X360 & PS3 for a long time to come. The fact is, in some cases the X360 version is better and in some cases the PS3 version is better. People can't just say the PS3 is "gimped" when it is doing some games better than the X360 can manage. It isn't clear cut.
If Rage matters to you that much, buy it on the PC. If a game is exclusive to the console you have (or don't) then you really shouldn't complain. There's nowhere else you're going to get to play it!
OMG! Someone says ID's latest games are average and people jump on them! To all the Carmack defenders out there. Doom 1,2, Quake 1&2 are sublime. Best of the day. Why? Very little competition. Hell I even bought my first PC for them. But come on are you truthfully honestly saying Id's (here I say Id and not Carmack's) latest games are worth playing? Until Rage is backed up by a decent game who cares. And as for all the booha about 360 games being technically superior. You kidding? That argument was so 2007! Even the average score of same games in metacritic put the PS3 slightly ahead of the 360. Shame on your lies! God i love this forum. Dead head gamers all of us! Come on upgrade to PS3! And stop being a 360 caveman/woman/jippo!
He is, he made wolfenstien 3d, doom 1, 2 and 3, quake 1,2,3, he indirectly made through his engines half-life, duex ex, duex ex 2, thief, system shock 2 and countless others his engines have powered, all because the guy knows how to get the best out of any hardware.
Before somebody comes in and tries to declare that your whole statement must be wrong because a supporting tiny detail near the end of your post is slightly incorrect, I am going to politely point out that the Deus Ex games ran on versions of Epic's Unreal Engine, and Thief and System Shock 2 both ran on Looking Glass' Dark engine.
But apart form that, yes. Carmack's probably _the_ technical genius when it comes to 3D game engines. If he says something on the subject, then get out the chisel and the stone tablets - it's canon.
thanks for the tip, i see now i did make the mistake, my bad
OMG! Someone says ID's latest games are average and people jump on them! To all the Carmack defenders out there. Doom 1,2, Quake 1&2 are sublime. Best of the day. Why? Very little competition. Hell I even bought my first PC for them. But come on are you truthfully honestly saying Id's (here I say Id and not Carmack's) latest games are worth playing? Until Rage is backed up by a decent game who cares. And as for all the booha about 360 games being technically superior. You kidding? That argument was so 2007! Even the average score of same games in metacritic put the PS3 slightly ahead of the 360. Shame on your lies! God i love this forum. Dead head gamers all of us! Come on upgrade to PS3! And stop being a 360 caveman/woman/jippo!
I am pretty sure I have read every post in this topic and I don't recall any one really bringing up the quality of ID games in term of how fun they are to play or anything of that sort. There may be a very few who have brought that up but not many. The majority of people defending Carmack are defending his ability as a programmer which is being questioned by those who know nothing of him and more than likely nothing of programming. And all because he was misquoted, making it appear that he was lashing out at their precious console when in reality he stated they had some problems with both versions and that the PS3 version is only behind and takes some extra work to get it where it needs to be due to its architecture.
This game has not really interested me before and it still doesn't really. I haven't really been following it closely though, I may give it a rent when it comes out. I agree that Id games aren't the most entertaining out there. But Carmack is a brilliant programmer, and to label him as untalented or lazy comes off as being ignorant and petty.
Is this what that journalism degree got you? This? Three years studying the great reporters, and you end up writing this? That you are so ashamed, that there isn't even a proper byline.
You flame up, out of context, a single quote, purely to drive up traffic and one off ad dollar hits. When people point out how out of context and incorrect the story is, you update it, claiming to have received "new" information from Edge.
Everyone knows that Future Publishing own both Edge and CVG. There's either a complete lack of competence and due diligance at the organisation, that the writer didn't even check it out with a sister publication.
But more likely, is that accuracy doesn't matter, and as long as you can whore out those hits Daily Mail like in their inaccuracy, you'll get a nice bonus.
If I were Carmack, I would be even more incensed. Why would anyone speak to your blasted organisation, when all they end up doing is bastardising your own words to shill to Digg.
Three solutions:
1: Don't buy Future Publishing mags. They're thin, over-priced, they treat their staff like crap, and anything that appears in one of their mags that's actually related to gaming is normally just a mere accidental side-effect of them trying to make as much money from advertisers as possible.
2: Use Firefox with Ad-block Plus to browse the site. That way, not only do you save on your bandwidth and not only do Future not profit from putting flame-bate like this up every day to drive traffic, but most importantly, you'll actually be able to see the damn site without all of those crap pop-ups.
3: Don't get your news from CVG. They mostly copy/paste it from a few other websites anyway, and anything of worth that actually hits here first will be found somewhere else within minutes, and normally in a more accurate and better sourced form.
The only good that this site serves is to come and wind up the unfailingly insecure fanboys who, by a glance at their behaviour, could easily be mistaken for having accidentally stapled their own scrotum to one of the sides in Console War VII.
Oh, and PC users aren't in anyway feeling smug about Rage, because Carmack's already gone on record as saying it's a "console game that's been designed from the ground up for console controllers", and all as PC owners know all too well, "Console Game" is usually an industry euphemism for "Dumbed Down Piece of Crap". (See Deus Ex 2, Civ Rev, etc. x100 for examples.)
Jesus, SunScramble, calnm down. If I want to play Civ, the Sims, Point and Clicks and most strategy/rpg games I'll use my PC. If I want to play pretty much any FPS/driver/3PS these days I'll use the 360. Except Crysis. Obviously. Too expensive to keep upgrading every 6 months when they make perfectly servicable versions for a static platform.
Sounds reasonable to me, except why on earth would you want to put yourself through the torture that is gamepad controls for frenetic FPS games when the PC's K&M setup beckons (presuming the FPS game was released on the PC as well)? Point-in-case: MW2. Short of a good chunk of change I wouldn't go anywhere near the Xbox 360 version of MW2 when I can play it on my PC.
I dont really care what this guy says, he has not made a good game in a very long time.
Also what kind of idiot comes out and says "Hey guess what, Im making a PS3 game but to be honest I cant work the damn thing out!"
You want people to buy your game you clown! Lots of dev's have already shown just how much they can push out of the PS3 and if you cant match that then thats your problem. What is also now your problem, is that your have just turned 22 million people away from buying your game!
Im sorry if your programming knowledge only goes as far as windows based machines, but that just shows people that perhaps your not as good as you make yourself out to be John.
You actually speak for 22 million other individuals? That would be impressive if it were true.
OMG! Someone says ID's latest games are average and people jump on them! To all the Carmack defenders out there. Doom 1,2, Quake 1&2 are sublime. Best of the day. Why? Very little competition. Hell I even bought my first PC for them. But come on are you truthfully honestly saying Id's (here I say Id and not Carmack's) latest games are worth playing? Until Rage is backed up by a decent game who cares. And as for all the booha about 360 games being technically superior. You kidding? That argument was so 2007! Even the average score of same games in metacritic put the PS3 slightly ahead of the 360. Shame on your lies! God i love this forum. Dead head gamers all of us! Come on upgrade to PS3! And stop being a 360 caveman/woman/jippo!
OMG! Someone says ID's latest games are average and people jump on them! To all the Carmack defenders out there. Doom 1,2, Quake 1&2 are sublime. Best of the day. Why? Very little competition. Hell I even bought my first PC for them. But come on are you truthfully honestly saying Id's (here I say Id and not Carmack's) latest games are worth playing? Until Rage is backed up by a decent game who cares. And as for all the booha about 360 games being technically superior. You kidding? That argument was so 2007! Even the average score of same games in metacritic put the PS3 slightly ahead of the 360. Shame on your lies! God i love this forum. Dead head gamers all of us! Come on upgrade to PS3! And stop being a 360 caveman/woman/jippo!
Well written, Voad. *tips hat*
I am pretty sure I have read every post in this topic and I don't recall any one really bringing up the quality of ID games in term of how fun they are to play or anything of that sort. There may be a very few who have brought that up but not many. The majority of people defending Carmack are defending his ability as a programmer which is being questioned by those who know nothing of him and more than likely nothing of programming. And all because he was misquoted, making it appear that he was lashing out at their precious console when in reality he stated they had some problems with both versions and that the PS3 version is only behind and takes some extra work to get it where it needs to be due to its architecture.
This game has not really interested me before and it still doesn't really. I haven't really been following it closely though, I may give it a rent when it comes out. I agree that Id games aren't the most entertaining out there. But Carmack is a brilliant programmer, and to label him as untalented or lazy comes off as being ignorant and petty.
CVG should be ashamed of themselves for purposely stoking the stupid console fanboy flames by extracting a single, irrelevant line from a much larger interview, pretending that this "information" was representative of the final state of the game.
I've been a long time reader, but after stooping to this ridiculous level of tabloid blog fodder, I certainly won't be a regular reader anymore. Save this s**t for Joystiq or Kotaku, thanks.
@LordVon " Compared to what? The iPhone? PSP? Nintendo Wii? DS? PS2? Dreamcast? XBox 1? Gamecube? Any other console besides the X360 that you choose to parade as superior? I don't think so.
Perhaps you consider the X360's GPU superior to the variety available for the PC? I should hope not. "
Not at all. There are many systems that have been well balanced, and the overall performance level is not the issue. There is no point being able to calculate 7 million triangles if you can only rasterize 1 million. There is no point being able to vertex shade 7 million vertices if you don't have the memory bandwidth to stream 7 million vertices through the GPU. There's no point having the VRAM for a 3840x2160 framebuffer and only having the pixel throughput to do 640x480.
The PS3 is a CPU heavy machine. The Cell has ridiculous stats and figures which make it out be a monster, but where's the evidence of this monster CPU in the real world? The CPU is busy bailing out a GPU which is under powered. If the PS3 had fewer SPUs and a better GPU, it would be more balanced. It would still be harder to write for in that separating out code to the SPUs would still require more work than traditional CPUs, but if developers could have the SPU time they spend processing geometry back for gameplay, they would take it.
The problem with all this is perception. People genuinely expect that in 2 years time, programming "tricks" and knowing how to program the cell better will magically increase the PS3s actual capability and put more visible details and better graphics on screen. I just don't see it.
Sony's problem, is that to push the strengths of the PS3, we should be writing games that do more animation, more physics, more procedural effects. And less actual graphics. But that would give the the other guys the "screen shot advantage", pushing more detail and more pixels, and those are the things that the punters actually see.
There's no point having the VRAM for a 3840x2160 framebuffer and only having the pixel throughput to do 640x480.
yeah, im currently rendering games at 5040x1024, but ive only 2 screens so i can only see 2960x1024 but should be picking up a 3rd soon. Still HAWX & GRID run @ ~80FPS completely maxed but no AA, HD WTF!!! lol
LIES LIES MORE LIES AND DECEIT! I'M NOT HAVING IT.
Unfortuntely some people have such blind brand loyalty to Sony they will deny anything thats anti-PS3.
Unfortunately some people CHOOSE TO BE anti-PS3. What is it exactly *you* hope to gain? Perhaps you are also anti-PS2, anti-dreamcast, anti-PSP, anti-DS, anti-iPhone... They're all "gimped" by todays PC hardware standards, but that doesn't mean they don't have useful or entertaining applications. People still buy them!
whats that all about? maybe you havent woken up properly.
Er, I think you've attributed someone else's words to me there.. I didn't say that.
Then the relevant commenter should feel obliged to feel remorse and not you.
Why is there this constant and unending baiting of svd_grasshoper on every PS3 article?
For some reason I read through all the pages of that Sony posts losses thread and it was basically that svd Versus about 15 other posters
It was a disgrace and a new low. I know the man brings it on himself in some ways but the barrage of hate filled posts calling him c*nt, w*nker, tw*t, cretin, chav, loner, PS3 owner, insulting his mum, and posting his profile from another website to laugh at was too much.
I think this cyber-bullying should not be encouraged by the CVG website. Although I'm loathe to see a form of forum dictatorship, I think the mods are best not joining in with the campaign of terror and instead try and exert some bloody decorum around here.
I wouldn't be suprised if some of you found his address and pushed steaming dog-s**t through his door or left a severed pigs head on his car bonet with the eyes gauged out and replaced with digestive biscuits
* puts out hand of saviour and offers to lead a crying, emotional wreck of an svd_ to the promised land *
"Come with me - I will take you to Gametrailers and N4G, there, you will be accepted amongst the massed ranks of Sony zealots.
The rest of you should take a look at yourself in the mirror. Come along now svd. Don't look at them."
I really enjoy all the rubbish fanboyism here lol, great fun to read, ive a PS3, but who gives a s**t my PC destroys it in gfx,processing power,capabilities,audio but i still game on it, why? cos i bloody like games.
Just because some idiot buys A instead of B doesnt mean its any better or worse, ive been gaming for too long to give a crap about the hardware, wheres the N64 now? or the PS2? Super Nintendo? PS1? Megadrive? noone gives a crap now but back in the day the same stupid fanboy rants existed, so basically that was all a waste of time as this is but wont be realised by the fanboys until the next generation of consoles come out and they can argue thick and thin about those.
Love these guys Lord and Eltonbird geezers! They're like Mensa Fanboys on speed playing a game of Tech-head chess jousting! love it!
Thanks! (I think?) I do try and bring some actual facts to the debate. I've been making console games for a living since 1997 and have worked on, or with people who are working on, every single console since the Saturn. I have and hear a lot of first hand accounts of where the problems with various consoles lie, and some gamers expectations are just not based in the real world.
I particularly react to the opinion that it's just a matter of time before the PS3 "destroys" the 360. It is so clearly not the case. Both consoles have things in their favour, but I've yet to see an example where the PS3 architecture is clearly superior when it comes to mainstream videogames and that is, after all, it's primary function. The Sony fans that have wet their pants over the sheer power of the Cell really need to come back down to earth. People believe what they want to believe, often in spite of the facts.
Not at all. There are many systems that have been well balanced, and the overall performance level is not the issue. If the PS3 had fewer SPUs and a better GPU, it would be more balanced. It would still be harder to write for in that separating out code to the SPUs would still require more work than traditional CPUs, but if developers could have the SPU time they spend processing geometry back for gameplay, they would take it.
Programmers can only take what's given to them. They don't have a choice. It is up to the programmer to make the best of it - or not.
I don't remember anyone being quoted as saying the most important criteria for a games console is that it should be balanced. The C64 could hardly be classed as "well balanced"... It was great at sprites and scrolling, but crap at 3d and had an awful colour pallette. The SNES could hardly be classed as "well balanced"... Mode 7 graphics, but only a 1.79Mhz CPU. ELITE on the ZX Spectrum used the Fibonacci sequence to determine the names & market statistics for each planetary system. The point wasn't ever that the ZX Spectrum only had 48k total memory or a Z80 CPU. It just had inflexible system limitations that programmers made the best of - and that's all.
People moaning that systems should be balanced should go away and think about whether their lives are balanced. Programmers can always have the challenge of getting the best out of whatever hardware is available, if they're willing to take that challenge - it's there. That's what being a programmer really should be all about and where a true sense of satisfaction and pride in one's work can be attained. Maybe you have forgotten.
There is no point being able to calculate 7 million triangles if you can only rasterize 1 million.
Actually, there was no point writing everything you did. Consider this...
* PC's have 4GB+ of main system RAM. * PC's have 1000's of GB per HDD. * PC graphics cards have 256MB+ of VRAM. * PC CPU's are more capable than the GPU's on graphics cards.
Each of those points are completely flexible and can be as balanced or unbalanced as the owner chooses. Now what are you going to do?
Horses for courses. Some great games are flashy looking but don't really do much under the hood. Some great games look pretty average but offer an involved, complex but compelling experience. The idea that all games should be balanced or that consoles should be balanced is just your imagination trying to impose some sort of technical or logical consistency / order to what actually amounts to what is always a financial decision.
No-one would bother playing Tetris if what you wrote really carried any weight. Thank Alexey Pajitnov that it doesn't.
The PS3 is a CPU heavy machine. The Cell has ridiculous stats and figures which make it out be a monster, but where's the evidence of this monster CPU in the real world?
What exactly is it that you are asking for here? Real world uses for the CELL (and PS3) have been well documented.
The CPU is busy bailing out a GPU which is under powered.
Interestingly put. The X360's GPU is insufficiently powered to handle everything the X360's CPU might throw at it too. Various PC features and capabilities are also limited, but may be offset by other hardware & software routines / workarounds. I'm sure there are instances where X360 programmers make use of the X360's CPU to "bail out" the Xenos. You certainly can't say that all X360 games run at a solid 60fps either.
It's game play that counts. Most of the people commenting in this thread that i.d. haven't released a decent game in ages make a valid point. You should focus on those sorts of points rather than trying to claim that the PS3 is "gimped". Come on now... Be fair.
The problem with all this is perception. People genuinely expect that in 2 years time, programming "tricks" and knowing how to program the cell better will magically increase the PS3s actual capability and put more visible details and better graphics on screen. I just don't see it.
I think the problem also is *your* perception, or do the ramblings of 12 year old's carry sufficient weight that you feel obliged to make equally disproportionate, biased anti-PS3 claims?
Where's the balance? I'd like to see you make some anti-X360 statements. Can you manage that, or is it all just too much?
You might also want to consider that the "PS3's actual capability" has not yet been fully tapped. Games like Uncharted 2 & God of War 3 show significant graphics & environment improvements on games that have come before. There's nothing "magic" about it. The PS3 still has life left in it and you are not qualified to say PS3 games will no longer exhibit any growth.
There will always be other techniques to explore that others didn't think to try and there'll be other games that focus on specific hardware 'benefits'. Ask the Russians who are still p**sing about with the ZX Spectrum.
I don't see the X360's actual capability - whether CPU or GPU - magically - or realistically increasing much. Likewise, EA Sports wouldn't be selling many games if consumers insisted their games grew in leaps and bounds year after year. Maybe it doesn't matter then...
Sony's problem, is that to push the strengths of the PS3, we should be writing games that do more animation, more physics, more procedural effects. And less actual graphics. But that would give the the other guys the "screen shot advantage", pushing more detail and more pixels, and those are the things that the punters actually see.
Why is that a problem for Sony? Who are these "other guys" you speak of? In my opinion, Gran Turismo 5 on PS3 looks better and more realistic than Forza 3 on the X360. I bet I'm not the only one. Hmm.
I Suggest you go back to sleep
I suggest that as you promote one of i.d.'s shoddier experiences, you take your own advice.
I used the term gimped, as in it's gimped in comparison to the the PS3 Sony initially wanted to make and started their hype machine on the back of.
There is really no use in going back over old ground and talking about old systems. The world has moved on. We are now in the position of *knowing* what is needed to make great video games, with believable environments, characters and such like. Console manufacturers should now be reacting to what the programmers and designers in this industry want and need. Not vice-versa.
Your point about PCs is a good one actually. You don't buy the latest CPU and then stick a 3 year old GFX card in do you. That will do sod all for your gaming experience if the GPU isn't up to snuff. Why don't PC programmers use the same ideas you have to use on PS3? Use that monster CPU to do all forms of HSR right down to basic BFC and give the GPU as little to do as you possibly can, then maybe, a 3 year old GFX card might just suffice? Simple really. You don't have to. Because PC gamers upgrade, don't expect to be able to get away with an out of date 3D card and any halfway decent GPU will do all that stuff for practically free these days.
Allowing games programmers to make games, not spend months worrying about scheduling tasks and managing 6 SPU threads, is surely what most games programmers would prefer to be doing?
However, iD Software still intends to release all three versions at 60fps and they're confident they can achieve this:
"Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform," Carmack added
"The work remaining is getting it locked so there’s never a dropped frame or a tear, but we’re confident that we’re going to get that."
It would appear that despite my lengthy absence, CVG remains just as shoddy & biased a publication as it always was. CVG, your articles really are pathetic. Grow some balls & show some integrity!
I used the term gimped, as in it's gimped in comparison to the the PS3 Sony initially wanted to make and started their hype machine on the back of.
More like you proudly imposed the term "gimped" as if to make it seem as though the PS3 has a major failing which aggressively impairs it from functioning as a system.
The inclusion of the RSX is not a design flaw from which the PS3 cannot possibly recover. The CELL is used to assist with graphics - so fair enough... It's logically not that different to using a look up table instead of doing some real-time maths. They're viable techniques and there's nothing "wrong" with that, certainly not enough to start throwing the word "gimped" around.
Besides, the PS3 is what it is. The GPU & CPU haven't changed since the first SKU went on the market. It's unfair to compare design specs against what was actually released.
We are now in the position of *knowing* what is needed to make great video games, with believable environments, characters and such like.
Which clearly does not explain why gamers still talk about the good old days and the great games that existed as opposed to the sh*t that programmers & developers shuffle out the door and pass off as "great games" these days. Even Carmack + i.d.'s sh*t... Why do so many people want HD versions of old games? Most of the new games coming out are sh*t.
Believable environments, characters and such - my bottom.
Console manufacturers should now be reacting to what the programmers and designers in this industry want and need. Not vice-versa.
You can talk, but money screams louder.
Your point about PCs is a good one actually. You don't buy a the latest CPU and then stick a 3 year old GFX card in do you. That will do sod all for your gaming experience if the GPU isn't up to snuff.
I don't know anyone who invests in the latest CPU, or the latest GPU, so no, no and your comment is therefore null and void.
Why don't PC programmers use the same ideas you have to use on PS3? Use that monster CPU to do all forms of HSR right down to basic BFC and give the GPU as little to do as you possibly can, then maybe, a 3 year old GFX card might just suffice? Simple really. You don't have to. Because PC gamers upgrade, don't expect to be able to get away with an out of date 3D card and any halfway decent GPU will do all that stuff for practically free these days.
Games are (even more so) seen as "products" these days. It used to be that a decent game would be born from a decent routine - or bit of ingenuity.
Nowadays, a decent game is what your Chief Financial Officer tells you it is... Quake Live. Tiger Woods online. Hand held versions of popular 'old' games. HD versions of popular 'old' games like Bionic Commando Rearmed and Super Streetfighter HD Turbo Remix... I could go on, but my (valid) point should be apparent by now. CPU + GPU just isn't as important as game play and graphics really don't seem to be all that important as they're "good enough". Tiger Woods '10 for example shows bugger all graphical improvement over '09... Oh no, my mistake - there are more people "in the crowds". Surely that's not a GPU issue!
I believe I said before that game play is what really counts and you dismissed it as waffle.
Allowing games programmers to make games, not spend months worrying about scheduling tasks and managing 6 SPU threads, is surely what most games programmers would prefer to be doing?
... or managing locking issues in multi-threaded code across multiple X360 CPU cores. I would tend to agree.
However, it isn't as though games programmers go that extra mile themselves to make life easier. For example a X360 developer could use XNA if his game doesn't need the performance and capabilities that are available on tap. Why not make life easier in those circumstances then? Double standards...
Why is there this constant and unending baiting of svd_grasshoper on every PS3 article?
For some reason I read through all the pages of that Sony posts losses thread and it was basically that svd Versus about 15 other posters
It was a disgrace and a new low. I know the man brings it on himself in some ways but the barrage of hate filled posts calling him c*nt, w*nker, tw*t, cretin, chav, loner, PS3 owner, insulting his mum, and posting his profile from another website to laugh at was too much.
I think this cyber-bullying should not be encouraged by the CVG website. Although I'm loathe to see a form of forum dictatorship, I think the mods are best not joining in with the campaign of terror and instead try and exert some bloody decorum around here.
I wouldn't be suprised if some of you found his address and pushed steaming dog-s**t through his door or left a severed pigs head on his car bonet with the eyes gauged out and replaced with digestive biscuits
* puts out hand of saviour and offers to lead a crying, emotional wreck of an svd_ to the promised land *
"Come with me - I will take you to Gametrailers and N4G, there, you will be accepted amongst the massed ranks of Sony zealots.
The rest of you should take a look at yourself in the mirror. Come along now svd. Don't look at them."
I agree that the baiting it way OTT regarding svd, but he has pretty much covered all the offensive bases many times over. Going on about his real name was pretty lame - Alan. So what? I know someone called Alan. Actually I know a few. My name's Tim.
There also seems to have been a lot of 360 fanboys appearing over the last month or so. We all have it within us, and my 360's great and to be honest I'm glad to see Sony knocked down a peg or two after some of their comments regarding the PS3 and Sony's vision for it has been confusing at the best of times. But if the 360 and PS3 were evenly priced, I can't say what I would chose now. I've seen people comment on here that the attitudes of PS3 owners put them off buying the console, and I kind of know where they were coming from, but what the 360 fanboys lack in sheer arrogance they make up for in numbers
There are some great games on the PS3 and if anyone goes into the PS3 threads on the actual forum, you'll see the mental ravings on the article comments aren't the norm there.
I'm pretty p**sed and starting again at noon. Wish me luck.
Face it, PC will have lowest sales thanks to bloody piracy. Remember Demigod anyone? I am confident both console versions will thrive and the ever brilliant Mr Carmack will have resolved this frame rate issue in no time.
The problem with Mr Lords points about gameplay, is that we are in an industry driven (rightly or wrongly) by graphics and technology.
For example. Why do developers feel they need the scene complexity that requires the RSX to be "helped out" by the Cell?
Why don't they just reduce the vertex count to what the RSX can handle, and do something more interesting with the CPU? If graphics don't really matter, and the gameplay was better, you would prefer that, no? Or would you then have looked at your purchasing decision differently? Would you have judged the console to be inferior, if it wasn't producing the same level of scene complexity as another console?
If you go back and re-judge you SNES v Megadrive purchasing decision, based on the same rules you use today, you will find they are polar opposites! Using your statements about current gen, you would have wanted a mega drive because it had 3 times the CPU! But the SNES had more colours and mode 7 (a more capable GPU), so which did you go for? a SNES.
And just to clarify a tech point. You are aware that every SPU thread on CELL requires a PPU thread to manage it? So not only are you farming out code to the SPUs, loading programs, setting up DMAs to get data in and out, but you need to be "managing locking issues in multi-threaded code across a single CPU core" on top of structuring all your code into 256k chunks for the SPUs. Yeas, 360 requires proper use of multithreading to get the best out of it, but it is still a lot simpler than making use of the Cell efficiently.
And also, how hypocritical are you to say "it's all about the gameplay" right after criticising the 360 because it's DASHBOARD graphics aren't authored in native 1080p?? What's that got to do with anything?
The problem with Mr Lords points about gameplay, is that we are in an industry driven (rightly or wrongly) by graphics and technology.
There's no problem with my point about game play. The latest graphics technology isn't necessary to make games that people want to play and many games released don't take full advantage of the hardware. Anyone with half a brain on this or any site will tell you game play is what's most important to them.
I suppose you think people wouldn't bother buying a Wii if they knew the graphics hardware was comparable to a Gamecube.
If the game play for ANY game is not up to my own personal standards, then I either won't buy it - or I take it back. As a programmer / developer you can either appreciate that fact or not, but like everyone else - I'm going to do what I want, not what the industry force feeds me to do. Make a sh*t game with amazing graphics if you like - I won't buy it, or I'll take it back - robbing you of someone else's sale when they buy a pre-owned version.
I'm a consumer. *Developers* answer to *me*, or *developers* go out of business.
For example. Why do developers feel they need the scene complexity that requires the RSX to be "helped out" by the Cell? Why don't they just reduce the vertex count to what the RSX can handle, and do something more interesting with the CPU? If graphics don't really matter, and the gameplay was better, you would prefer that, no? Or would you then have looked at your purchasing decision differently? Would you have judged the console to be inferior, if it wasn't producing the same level of scene complexity as another console?
If you look at games such as MAG, SOCOM Confrontation, Resistance 2, etc... These titles hardly place pressure on the RSX+CELL to manage graphics in the way something like KillZone 2 does. In MAG for example, the CELL is being used to help manage 256 players in game. In Resistance 2, again the focus is on managing 64 players simultaneously and also - hordes of enemies on screen. SOCOM Confrontation looks very much like a PS2 game but with the benefit of HD graphics (meaning higher resolution). In Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, there IS a focus on having realistic graphics - but Polyphony also have a 16 car field running - which Turn 10 couldn't manage with Forza 2.
You're trying to force home some fictitious invention that people are focused only on graphics and that PS3 developers have to use the CELL to bail out the RSX every time (you say it's gimped), but that's really not necessarily the case. Developers ARE doing interesting things with the CELL that doesn't relate to graphics performance. Too bad you choose not to see it.
If you go back and re-judge you SNES v Megadrive purchasing decision, based on the same rules you use today, you will find they are polar opposites! Using your statements about current gen, you would have wanted a mega drive because it had 3 times the CPU! But the SNES had more colours and mode 7 (a more capable GPU), so which did you go for? a SNES.
Er... If I go back and re-judge my SNES vs Megadrive purchasing decision? You pretend to know what I'm thinking, but again - all these "decisions" you speak of exist only in your imagination. They appear to have f*** all to do with me or what I think.
The SNES had "F-Zero", the Megadrive did not. The SNES had "Super Soccer", the Megadrive did not. The SNES had "Super Mario World", the Megadrive did not... I bought a SNES for games I wanted to play that you otherwise couldn't get. What f***ing choice did anyone have?
Games like "Super Probotector", "StreetFighter 2" and "Smash TV" only made a little (or gimmicky) use of panning / rotational Mode 7. That didn't mean I would've objected to buying those games.
Games like "Axelay" had mode 7 sections, but the 2d levels really shined. I prefer "Axelay" to "Thunderforce 3" (or 4), but that has nothing to do with Mode 7, or the SNES. I prefer "UN Squadron" to those 2 Thunderforce games as well, again - nothing to do with the fact that it was on a SNES. The SNES had a fantastic controller as well, better than the Megadrive's - in my opinion.
You're being a complete idiot wasting your development time slagging off the PS3 which you neither own nor develop for.
And just to clarify a tech point. You are aware that every SPU thread on CELL requires a PPU thread to manage it? So not only are you farming out code to the SPUs, loading programs, setting up DMAs to get data in and out, but you need to be "managing locking issues in multi-threaded code across a single CPU core" on top of structuring all your code into 256k chunks for the SPUs. Yeas, 360 requires proper use of multithreading to get the best out of it, but it is still a lot simpler than making use of the Cell efficiently.
Good times!
And also, how hypocritical are you to say "it's all about the gameplay" right after criticising the 360 because it's DASHBOARD graphics aren't authored in native 1080p?? What's that got to do with anything?
I'm a hypocrite? You're a dick head. I made the point that the X360's dashboard is low-res compared with the PS3's equivalent. I hardly see that as a hypocritical statement. They're part of the everyday console experience and feature as part of the experience of playing every game, but it's not as if they are games. I own the X360, PS3 and Wii. If I say the PS3 is better at X, or that the X360 is better at Y, then that's based on fact and observation. I own the hardware and I can talk about it anyway I like.
Who the hell are you to speak out against the Lord?
I thought it was an industry driven by profit and making money.
I'd love to see Mr.Bird explain his way out of that one. Perhaps he'd like to convince us his mission statement is not about making money at all...
Ok, seeing as you're such an expert on Cell usage, could you please explain how it's used to manage 64 players in resistance, or 256 in Mag?
The issue in getting 64 or 256 players is one of data distribution. The Cell is doing sod all to help in that regard. You don't need a super fast CPU to handle and process the amount of data that's coming in over an internet connection!
Getting "hordes of enemies on screen" is mostly graphics problem. Especially if they are human players and have no AI!
What I'm saying is not fictitious. Every developer working on a high end title needs to use a big chunk of cell performance just to minimise what they send to the GPU. It's a fact. If it's a X-platform title and are using the same assets as PC and 360, it's a necessity.
The bottom line is, as Carmack has said. CPU wise they are pretty equal, and the 360 can render faster. That is exactly what every single developer I know with PS3 experience says.
I made my original post, because of the reaction of the PS3 people in response to this story. People need to understand that matching the 360 on a X-platform game is a challenge, not always an achievable one. As I said in one of my posts which you didn't reply to, I fully expect there to be no issue in getting Rage to 60fps on PS3. They're limited by pixel performance, so will probably just have to sacrifice some resolution. Trying to make that point to people who still think the PS3 is a miracle machine waiting to happen is really not worth my effort.
I will argue the money point. If it was just about the money, if this industry didn't want to move forward, it wouldn't have ditched the PS2.
Games designers don't sit down and think about business and money. They try and make the best they can and hope that success follows.
What usually defines something is the leader in it's genre? The technology. The graphics. The size and scope. All are technology issues, and all are allowed to improve through hardware advances.
Ok, seeing as you're such an expert on Cell usage, could you please explain how it's used to manage 64 players in resistance, or 256 in Mag?
The issue in getting 64 or 256 players is one of data distribution. The Cell is doing sod all to help in that regard. You don't need a super fast CPU to handle and process the amount of data that's coming in over an internet connection!
Getting "hordes of enemies on screen" is mostly graphics problem. Especially if they are human players and have no AI!
What I'm saying is not fictitious. Every developer working on a high end title needs to use a big chunk of cell performance just to minimise what they send to the GPU. It's a fact. If it's a X-platform title and are using the same assets as PC and 360, it's a necessity.
The bottom line is, as Carmack has said. CPU wise they are pretty equal, and the 360 can render faster. That is exactly what every single developer I know with PS3 experience says.
I made my original post, because of the reaction of the PS3 people in response to this story. People need to understand that matching the 360 on a X-platform game is a challenge, not always an achievable one. As I said in one of my posts which you didn't reply to, I fully expect there to be no issue in getting Rage to 60fps on PS3. They're limited by pixel performance, so will probably just have to sacrifice some resolution. Trying to make that point to people who still think the PS3 is a miracle machine waiting to happen is really not worth my effort.
wouldn't like to see your post should you ever decide it's worth the effort.
Turns out CVG didn't tell the whole story with that Carmack interview...
tut tut tut
Until the 360 delivers a game, exclusive or otherwise, that comes close to Killzone 2's graphical prowess, I will continue to believe that the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the 360.
I suggest that as you promote one of i.d.'s shoddier experiences, you take your own advice.
lol, fair enough.
I actualy tried four or five user names before doomthree when registering, I had the game box in front of me so tried it, accepted. I think its a great game, no shame.
By the way, there are no full stops in the name 'id'.
sweatyBallacks, gears of war 2 looked better than killzone 2 as far as i'm concerned.
I enjoyed killzone 2, but it wasn't the mega game that some made out(people could make that argument about gears of war 2 as well).
Uncharted 2 from what i have seen looks to be one of the best looking next gen games so far though. I've not seen a game on my 360(or my ps3)that matches that graphically yet. Uncharted 2 could be the game that really gets ps3 owners bragging. I'm certainly buying it.
This is by Carmack, whom is probably the most famous person for inventing FPS.
I ain't gonna argue with the guy, ultimately if this person says his engine works best on the 360 and PC, then fair enough, he knows what hes talking about, after all, its his revenue were ultimately discussing here.
So the problem is what exactly, if the PS3 cannot cope with this engine, pick it up and buy on the 360 or the PC?
Does it really matter?
I ain't see much to this game anyway apart from like 2 vids. Doom 3 was supposed to be the next big thing and I thought that was s**te.
sweatyBallacks, gears of war 2 looked better than killzone 2 as far as i'm concerned.
I enjoyed killzone 2, but it wasn't the mega game that some made out(people could make that argument about gears of war 2 as well).
Uncharted 2 from what i have seen looks to be one of the best looking next gen games so far though. I've not seen a game on my 360(or my ps3)that matches that graphically yet. Uncharted 2 could be the game that really gets ps3 owners bragging. I'm certainly buying it.
Why compare GOW2 with Killzone 2? Apart from the fact they have bullets in, they aint got sod all in common!
Uncharted 2 looks superb, but then, the first one did and I don't hear anyone singing that praise.
I thin Heavy Rain will be a graphical tour de force. Had have said that since I first saw a preshowing it, the concept in the 2005 trailer was also rather interesting.
I suggest that as you promote one of i.d.'s shoddier experiences, you take your own advice.
lol, fair enough.
I actualy tried four or five user names before doomthree when registering, I had the game box in front of me so tried it, accepted. I think its a great game, no shame.
Seconded, I loved doom 3, I didn't find it shoddy in the least.
THERES NO WAY IN HELL THE GAME WOULD NEED 4 DVDS THATS LACK OF COMPRESSION TALENT RIGHT BEFORE ARE EYES OR EVEN bluray marketing hype
twilight princess was on a single gamecube mini disc and was clearly HUGE compared to resident evil 4 witch shipped on teo discs BULLSHIITTE CAPCOM YOUR LAZY TOO
i dont buy that crap for one second a dual layered dvd is above 8gb with compression you can get WAY WAY MORE this is blu ray hype
were as the bluray wouldnt require compression this dont sound right to me A NON HYPE BELIEVER and a guy whos seen nintendo squeeze huge amounts onto tiny carts
i dont buy it id software BUT I DO BUY THE CRAPPY CELL SPLIT INTO BITS BULLs**t JUST SHOWS MULTICXORE IS ALL HYPE FOR GAME DATA STREAMING
NINTENDO GIVE US EDRAM FAST RAM FAST LOADING BIG CATCH MEMORYS AND A EASY TO DEAL WITH CPU AND A X360 BEATING GPU TART UP MOTION A BIT AND SHOW THESE FOOLS HOW ITS DONE
I dont't get why everyone saying how good it is to have the the blu-ray discs for gaming.
Sure they can hold more stuff and u wont need lots of discs for big games but let me give u an example of where blu-ray fails for me:
When playing metal gear solid, after a chapter the game needs to uninstall the last chapter and install the new chapter which takes a about 5-7 mins, i would much rather pop in a disc than sit there waiting for it to install at the start of every chapter
So for this game i would much rather 4 discs if it is like the MGS way of handling things... depending on the game being gd aswell
THERES NO WAY IN HELL THE GAME WOULD NEED 4 DVDS THATS LACK OF COMPRESSION TALENT RIGHT BEFORE ARE EYES OR EVEN bluray marketing hype
twilight princess was on a single gamecube mini disc and was clearly HUGE compared to resident evil 4 witch shipped on teo discs BULLSHIITTE CAPCOM YOUR LAZY TOO
i dont buy that crap for one second a dual layered dvd is above 8gb with compression you can get WAY WAY MORE this is blu ray hype
were as the bluray wouldnt require compression this dont sound right to me A NON HYPE BELIEVER and a guy whos seen nintendo squeeze huge amounts onto tiny carts
i dont buy it id software BUT I DO BUY THE CRAPPY CELL SPLIT INTO BITS BULLs**t JUST SHOWS MULTICXORE IS ALL HYPE FOR GAME DATA STREAMING
NINTENDO GIVE US EDRAM FAST RAM FAST LOADING BIG CATCH MEMORYS AND A EASY TO DEAL WITH CPU AND A X360 BEATING GPU TART UP MOTION A BIT AND SHOW THESE FOOLS HOW ITS DONE
As good as the wii is, a game like Rage will never run on it.
Wiigodboy or what ever you liked to be called after you got removed. As much as I like the Wii you're not SERIOUSLY trying to compare Zelda Twilight Princess to ANY PS3 or 360 game are you?!?! Twilight princess is not bad but graphically it looks worse than some PS2 and definitely Xbox original games!! People buy Wiis not because of it's graphical or its proccessing power, they buy it for the fun games and if you are saying the Wii is on par with the 360 or PS3 power and graphics wise you are even more stupid than you sound.
185 comments. There's about 10 worth reading... Why are fanbois so easy to bait? The PS3 will be able to handle it once the code is optimised for its unique cell CPU.
I don't like the idea of constantly swapping DVDs in my 360 and I don't own a PS3 and probably never will.
My solution will be to buy this game on my PC, where it will be cosily installed on a massive hard drive that costs a hell of a lot less than 0.66p per MB, running at 90fps on a mid range graphics card.
Sorted. If you don't have a decent gaming PC but you do have either a 360 or a PS3 I think you know what you're going to do too. You're not going to accept the words of a flaming fanboi and purchase a different console solely for this game are you?
1st. id. Acknowledged, but I may still use i.d. tomorrow. Remind me again if it bothers you...
2nd.
As I said in one of my posts which you didn't reply to, I fully expect there to be no issue in getting Rage to 60fps on PS3. They're limited by pixel performance, so will probably just have to sacrifice some resolution. Trying to make that point to people who still think the PS3 is a miracle machine waiting to happen is really not worth my effort.
I am not obliged to answer your posts, it isn't as if I am going through them like a street sweeper cleaning up all the muck you leave behind, but I have been watching you... Oh yes.
I made my original post, because of the reaction of the PS3 people in response to this story. People need to understand that matching the 360 on a X-platform game is a challenge, not always an achievable one.
What reaction specifically? CVG's story omitted factual information and quotes from Carmack. If you only read the CVG story - you didn't get the full picture. CVG is a biased source of information and that bias runs against the PS3. On balance, that bias should offer "PS3 people" some leverage to counter.
Everyone knows there's a balance between the X360 and PS3, but your comments are certainly NOT serving to bring any balance to the forums. Some 15 year old fanboy drivel shouldn't incite another bunch of anti-PS3 drivel. How about, instead of ignoring the valid points I've made, you admit you're way too biased with all this talk of "gimped miracle machines" and get on with writing some f***ing games. What are you trying to gain here? A few more X360 sales? Are you trying to kill Sony before Polyphony release GT5 so you don't have to buy a PS3? Pffft!
Getting "hordes of enemies on screen" is mostly graphics problem. Especially if they are human players and have no AI! What I'm saying is not fictitious.<snip> The issue in getting 64 or 256 players is one of data distribution. The Cell is doing sod all to help in that regard. You don't need a super fast CPU to handle and process the amount of data that's coming in over an internet connection!
Do not question Lord Von PS3... I play b3yond question.
1. Hordes of enemies on screen is not just a graphics problem (& they are not all human players). All that shows is you've never played Resistance 2, don't even know what it is I'm referring to & don't know what you're talking about.
2. You say having 256 players is just data distribution? What rubbish bin did you pull that from? MAG manages 256 players on a rendering, game-play (collisions, animations, physics) AND networking level. As you progress in game, the players converge into a smaller more intense area, which means more network data, more rendering, more collisions, physics, etc... Zipper have had to create a completely new network infrastructure to support the game where each connected PS3 contributes to running the network to help work around the persistent effects of lag. It isn't as though there's just a bunch of Zipper / Sony network servers managing all the traffic from afar you know. If you go take another look, you'll see MAG is not doing anything graphically as flashy as KillZone 2, it is at about CoD4's quality level but running at 30fps instead of 60! That's all due to how much the CELL is doing and that's just one reason why you won't see a 256 player game on the X360.
Above and beyond that, it depends what Microsoft / Sony pay to get as exclusive. If you're a gamer - as I am - you'll buy the systems you need to play the games you want.
And just to clarify a tech point. You are aware that every SPU thread on CELL requires a PPU thread to manage it? So not only are you farming out code to the SPUs, loading programs, setting up DMAs to get data in and out, but you need to be "managing locking issues in multi-threaded code across a single CPU core" on top of structuring all your code into 256k chunks for the SPUs. Yeas, 360 requires proper use of multithreading to get the best out of it, but it is still a lot simpler than making use of the Cell efficiently.
Lord Von PS3's "THE CELL" I'll be quite happy to entertain you with CELL processor information because your previous "clarify a tech point" wasn't strictly correct.
1) The CELL contains: -1a- A EIB (Element Interconnect Bus) that connects the PPE (Power Processing Element) and SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements). The EIB contains 4 data rings, operates at 1.6GHz & can transfer data at over 200GB/s using point to point connections similar to those used in high-perf clusters & supercomputers. This means programmers face process map & congestion control issues (normal issues with parallel development). The bigger the data blocks - the faster the transfer, but data blocks must be small enough to fit on the SPE Local Store. -1b- 1 x 64 bit processor (PPE). Power PC instruction set, 64KB of L1 cache, 512KB of L2. Supports simultaneous multithreading. -1c- 7 x SPE's (+1 redundant), featuring 128 bit registers & SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) instructions that can simultaneously process the 4 x 32 bit words inside each register. You can unroll loops many times before running out of registers. The SPEs have no cache, but instead link to a 256KB Local Store - which makes the SPE's small & efficient, but complicates matters for programmers as all variables must fit on the LS. Large data blocks have to be accessed synchronously and the programmer must read / write blocks from / to main mem via DMA transfers. The algorithm to do this has to fit on the LS (bit like the old 640KB paging issue in the MSDOS days). The SPEs Local Store is much larger than Intel L1 data caches (e.g. Xeon has 32KB) and that's one of the reasons a single SPE outperforms even the highest clocked Xeon cores.
2) A P4 (with Hyper-threading) running at ~3.5Ghz can 'test' ~ 25M vertices per second. Optimised code running on the CELL can do 538M vertices per second. The issue is that to get this optimisation - you have to write very complex code (read bulky = more mem) on the CELL. The additional code necessary means available LS space is "expensive".
3) CELL 'traffic' has to be scheduled by DMA. The CELL supports DMA lists up to 2048 transfers, each - up to 16KB. The size of each transfer must be known in advance to set it up in the DMA list (32 bit word contains vertex id+len). DMA transfer latency may be 'hidden' by double buffering vertex lists, so while one buffer / list is being processed, new data is transferred into the next buffer, then the buffers are swapped. SPE data (vertex list) exchanges are queued (in & out) using interleaving data + sentinels. Loads can be 128 bit & use SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) lowering CPI.
4) Some of the tricks involved to optimise vertex "scanning" are: -4a- Issuing multiple loads per iteration (d-form) using a base ptr + offset ptrs to calculate the sum of a register + immediate offset (no need for separate reg addr computations). -4b- Removing branches using software speculation. -4c- Queuing vertex codes into the next queue even if not needed then advancing end ptr of the queue only if the vertex was added. -4d- Using __restrict__ ptr's to prevent stalls & ensure no aliasing takes place allowing bitmap loads to proceed in parallel. -4e- Shuffling adjacent lists to prevent aliasing.
See / have a play with the CELL SDK + system simulator: www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/cell Of course, to do any profiling you'll need a PS3 + Linux distro such as Fedora.
To summarize... Apps must be redesigned to utilise the CELL's computation AND data transfer capabilities. That doesn't lend itself to X360 ports, so fair enough that many multi-plat games run better on the X360. However, those (1) PS3 multi-plat games & (2) exclusives that are written from the ground up have every chance of (1) being as good as their X360 counterparts or (2) being games you wouldn't ever see on the X360 because yes really - it would also require more than just a re-work to get a PS3 exclusive game working on the X360. Data blasted through the SPE's at an optimal rate just isn't possible using standard hyper-threading on the X360's 3 cores, they don't have the throughput. X360 games will always* be possible on the PS3 / CELL however, even if there's some reduction in texture quality / resolution (due to RSX comparison with the X360 GPU / Xenos).
* Only exception to this I can think of = Natal games!
I will argue the money point. If it was just about the money, if this industry didn't want to move forward, it wouldn't have ditched the PS2.
It is the opportunity to make money and the threat of financial loss due to the competition that motivates the industry to build new consoles! Besides, Sony HAS NOT ditched the PS2. Sony is still milking that cash cow!
You know only too well if it wasn't for the money - neither you nor anyone else would be in the industry!
Games designers don't sit down and think about business and money. They try and make the best they can and hope that success follows.
Games designers do think about business and money if they want to get promoted, or in this life chapter - keep their job.
What usually defines something is the leader in it's genre? The technology. The graphics. The size and scope. All are technology issues, and all are allowed to improve through hardware advances.
Nah, f*** off, you're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows the Nintendo Wii is the best console on the market at the moment and that's full of old, limited tech!
I always thought that Direct Memory Access was considered a bottle neck and was only really utilized by processors after the local cache was full, it's nice to see how CELL gets over the latency issues. I enjoyed reading that, thank you LordVon!
bloody hell. Guy takes a half day to go to a wedding and comes back to this. Good to see Lord Von back. Wonder whos alternate personality the guy is. he only comes out when theres something of real importance to be said. Oh wait. no he doesn't.
Almost 200 posts on a thread about fps difference in a game thats over a year way.
I think you've found the neiche CVG start writing tech focused stories about the differnces between the 360 and the PS3 and watch the ad money roll. in.
MAy i suggest 'Sony say blu ray is betterer than DVD'
I find it rather sad that all he's saying is that the PS3's architecture is a bit harder to squeeze performance out of than PC/360.
He's not saying anything that countless other devs haven't before. He's not even saying it in a diminutive way. It's just the simple, oft confirmed fact that the PS3 is a bit of a pig to develop for when compared to the competition.
He said, effectively, "it's taking us a bit longer but it'll deliver". Why are the SDF behaving as if he said "lulz PS3 SuX0rZ"?
Calling Id or Carmack a "lazy dev" is just ridiculously childish and ignorant.
Also, the retarded comments from the other side of the fanboy spectrum - like this nugget of pure wisdom: "Even the bluray has its drawbacks, ..This proves it".
All that "proves" is that fanboys who can't tell the difference between a question of CPU/GPU architecture and a f**king optical storage medium really should keep their mouths shut if they don't want to be seen as morons.
I have to admit to only playing Wolfenstein 3d maybe a month (or two!) before the original DOOM was released.
I've already written a piece on PS3 Blu-ray Vs X360 DVD. Needs maybe an hour's work on it, but no, don't tempt me, I have other things to be doing.
If you're interested I've also written a little on the Bitbag about proper 1080p native resolutions in game, explaining memory buffer sizes and touching on the PS3's (lack of) fill rate Vs the X360. You'll have to hunt for it though, I think it might be around episode 45 of the Warzone podcast.
I actually found that post quite informative to the point that I'm willing to bet that Rage was developed initially for the PC - and thus the 360 because that's essentially all it is for the most part. Carmack is primarily a PC Developer so it would make sense, and his life easier, to do it that way around.
I'd definitely be interested in hearing about either consoles downfalls or saving graces, I'm ideologically promiscuous in this regard. *searches*
All that "proves" is that fanboys who can't tell the difference between a question of CPU/GPU architecture and a f**king optical storage medium really should keep their mouths shut if they don't want to be seen as morons.
wildhook2, of course Carmack had to respond, the way things were going no one would have bought the ps3 version with all this negativity about it going around.
We'll see how good the finished version is and more importantly, whether it has to run under res again to get it running at full speed.
^that drives me nuts about ps3 games btw, the fact ps3 games have to run under 720p to keep the framerate up, it's one of the main reasons i always choose the 360 version over the ps3 one. I can't believe ps3 only owners don't make a bigger deal about it.
I think its a bit of a bloody joke. Although a lot of the time the 1080p on the 360 is upscaled so its not much better but still.
Well, the majority of X360 / PS3 games are upscaled. People who would say the majority of PS3 versions of games run at lower native resolutions to the X360 are a bit off the mark. Frame rate has historically & usually been a problem, but devs have been working that out - often without dropping the native resolution.
The PS3 has no hardware vert upscaler, so programmers are often obliged to go for 720 / 1080 horz lines as a starting point. Programmers drop below the 720 lines when graphics performance is an issue and that happens most when porting code from the X360. There are many games that are sub 720p on X360 as well - just look at Halo 3, CoD 4 (& N.Gaiden 2) as examples. PS3 ports of such games are always going to be 'as bad' to start with & possibly worse. Games based on a ground-up PS3 specific (different) code base - such as N.G.Sigma 2 can end up better in the end.
In most cases devs are able to get the graphics performance they need from the RSX + CELL. There's too much quibbling on here.
No point me going through all this again here at CVG, if you're interested in reading my comments, see the thread on thebitbag.com - Episode 46 & listen to podcasts 45 + 46. http://www.thebitbag.com/2009/06/13/video-game-warzone-46-1080p-native-and-why-it-shouldnt-matter/comment-page-1/#comments
^that drives me nuts about ps3 games btw, the fact ps3 games have to run under 720p to keep the framerate up, it's one of the main reasons i always choose the 360 version over the ps3 one.
Plenty of 360 games run under 720p. CoD4, Oblivion, hell, even the flagship title Halo 3 doesn't manage full 720p.
In the case of Oblivion, it runs at 720p on PS3 while managing something silly like 640p on 360. Both platforms have their pros and cons.
^that drives me nuts about ps3 games btw, the fact ps3 games have to run under 720p to keep the framerate up, it's one of the main reasons i always choose the 360 version over the ps3 one.
Plenty of 360 games run under 720p. CoD4, Oblivion, hell, even the flagship title Halo 3 doesn't manage full 720p.
In the case of Oblivion, it runs at 720p on PS3 while managing something silly like 640p on 360. Both platforms have their pros and cons.
New comment on Eurogamer about the Xbox dash updates, saying full DVDs can be installed to HDD @ between 484MB and 3.4GB. So all this disc swapping BS about Rage on the 360 should not be too much of a problem. Even if people are still stuck with a 20GB drive. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox360-summer-09-update-article
I have to admit to only playing Wolfenstein 3d maybe a month (or two!) before the original DOOM was released.
I've already written a piece on PS3 Blu-ray Vs X360 DVD. Needs maybe an hour's work on it, but no, don't tempt me, I have other things to be doing.
If you're interested I've also written a little on the Bitbag about proper 1080p native resolutions in game, explaining memory buffer sizes and touching on the PS3's (lack of) fill rate Vs the X360. You'll have to hunt for it though, I think it might be around episode 45 of the Warzone podcast.
LordVonPS3 has not been idle in his absence...
a fellow 'old' person then ? thanks, I'll read with interest.
a fellow 'old' person then ? thanks, I'll read with interest.
Too old for this shizzle. My rather sarcastic looking avatar counterpart should give away how ancient (and wise) I am, but I still have the dexterity to carve up little children on the battlefield with my old boned stumps.
^that drives me nuts about ps3 games btw, the fact ps3 games have to run under 720p to keep the framerate up, it's one of the main reasons i always choose the 360 version over the ps3 one.
Plenty of 360 games run under 720p. CoD4, Oblivion, hell, even the flagship title Halo 3 doesn't manage full 720p.
In the case of Oblivion, it runs at 720p on PS3 while managing something silly like 640p on 360. Both platforms have their pros and cons.
Agree.
But...wasn't the PS3 version of Oblivion released a year later than the 360?
But...wasn't the PS3 version of Oblivion released a year later than the 360?
A fairer comparison would be Ghostbusters.
The PS3 version of Oblivion was released before the f/w v1.8 update, so the programmers didn't even have the luxury of a hardware upscaler in any form... Some achievement!
< 2007, the PS3 really was in a much worse state because Sony didn't have everything on the PS3 "switched on" yet! The presence of an upscaler chip was once just rumoured as a myth.
I can't say & won't comment whether Sony has any more features hidden away under the hood. It certainly would be interesting if one day - the redundant SPE on the PS3's CELL CPU (there are 8 but 1 is reserved) could be "enabled" for concurrent use. Currently it is enabled if one of the other 7 SPE's fail. I guess some gamer's PS3's might instantly brick following a firmware update, but then that does happen already anyway. If pushed, it might be possible for Sony to take that risk...
Ghostbusters... Don't make me talk about your mother.
^that drives me nuts about ps3 games btw, the fact ps3 games have to run under 720p to keep the framerate up, it's one of the main reasons i always choose the 360 version over the ps3 one.
Plenty of 360 games run under 720p. CoD4, Oblivion, hell, even the flagship title Halo 3 doesn't manage full 720p.
In the case of Oblivion, it runs at 720p on PS3 while managing something silly like 640p on 360. Both platforms have their pros and cons.
Agree.
But...wasn't the PS3 version of Oblivion released a year later than the 360?
A fairer comparison would be Ghostbusters.
True, no doubt the extra dev time helped, but it's besides the point that sub-720p rendering happens on both platforms.
The vast majority of 360 games I play quite obviously *do not* run at full 720p, even flagship exclusives like Halo 3 and Fable 2, which is why I though blagger's position to be a bit silly.
I guess MS lowered the multi disc licencsing fees like CARMACK wanted. As last I heard about this he was bitching about that cost and stating that the PS3 version was better as of disc size.LOL
I guess MS lowered the multi disc licencsing fees like CARMACK wanted. As last I heard about this he was bitching about that cost and stating that the PS3 version was better as of disc size.LOL
May still be. id are still debating whether to use the same compressed X360 assets - on the PS3. Most likely they will be the same assets, but it is interesting to read that this point is still up for debate on PS3. Perhaps if Rage does end up being 30fps locked on PS3 - and 60fps on X360, the PS3 version may benefit from some improved textures. There's nothing definite in that statement by the way.
@capsule_toy You SONY fanboys always blame lazy devcos and never the PS3 for its many problems and failings as a console. A device which seems clearly a system that SONY developed as a BLU-RAY movie player, a media hub, and pc lite, and then decide they should like throw in some game playing functionality as like it is gonna carry the PLAYSTATION branding.
might do. then again if they used the lower spec textures of the 360 version it might help them bring the frame rate up a lil on the PS3.
still plenty of time for it all to be optimised fully for both machines though. if anyones gonna get both machines working to the best of thier abilities its Carmack.
I dont really care what this guy says, he has not made a good game in a very long time.
Also what kind of idiot comes out and says "Hey guess what, Im making a PS3 game but to be honest I cant work the damn thing out!"
You want people to buy your game you clown! Lots of dev's have already shown just how much they can push out of the PS3 and if you cant match that then thats your problem. What is also now your problem, is that your have just turned 22 million people away from buying your game!
Im sorry if your programming knowledge only goes as far as windows based machines, but that just shows people that perhaps your not as good as you make yourself out to be John.
You actually speak for 22 million other individuals? That would be impressive if it were true.
JimSteele, the vast majority that you play on 360 don't run at 720p? And yet you only name 2 games?
You only have to look at eurogamer's comparison guide of the same titles running on 360 and ps3, there are far more ps3 games running under the full 720p than on the 360. It seems to be a common problem with the ps3, where-as the odd game on the 360 uses that running under res trick to keep the framerate up as well.
I never said the 360 didn't do it anyway, it's just more common practice on the ps3 unfortunately.
JimSteele, the vast majority that you play on 360 don't run at 720p? And yet you only name 2 games?
You only have to look at eurogamer's comparison guide of the same titles running on 360 and ps3, there are far more ps3 games running under the full 720p than on the 360. It seems to be a common problem with the ps3, where-as the odd game on the 360 uses that running under res trick to keep the framerate up as well.
I never said the 360 didn't do it anyway, it's just more common practice on the ps3 unfortunately.
You know what, I hate it when people run their mouth, talk a lot of sh*t but then don't / can't give solid evidence.
Frankly the X360 is actually more 'to blame' for games that have sub 720 horizontal lines on the PS3. This is evidenced below. Look at how many X360 EXCLUSIVE games have less than 720 horz lines... Look at how many games are less than 720 horz lines on both. It isn't just a problem with the PS3, if it were, then why wouldn't there be PS3 / SCE* exclusive games on the PS3 running at sub-HD resolutions? Games like inFAMOUS for example.
Now then... Who is going to tell me that the GUITAR HERO games with their PS2 style graphics and limited game play really couldn't be made 720p on PS3? Seriously. Games like S.Calibur 4 and VF 5 do just as much if not more. A few animations, some backgrounds... Much higher quality character models on those games too.
I would hope you folks could understand that the Guitar Hero games were ported from X360 and that the developers found immediate problems with the frame rate, so as eltonbird explained - as 60fps is important for those kinds of games, rather than try to work things out properly, the programmers took the easy way out and simply dropped the resolution. Who'd dare say the PS3 *can't* do Guitar Hero? Don't people look at the 585 lines and think "Hey - why is it always dropped from 720 down to 585? Couldn't it really be say - 600 lines?"
THINK PEOPLE. THINK. I don't doubt for a second that a game like Guitar Hero would be at least 720p on PS3. The programmers for Guitar Hero will quite likely continue to make each and every version 585 lines on PS3, just because "it worked last time". Hardly the same story as when EA Sports looked at how to get the frame rate up from 30fps to 60fps on PS3 Madden '09 from '08, or FIFA '09 from '08...
How about a game like Tony Hawks? One is 720 on PS3, but the other - not... Same goes for X360 in that case!
Anyway, so below is a list. As I see it, there's not enough sub 720p titles for anyone to make a big deal of the situation, but maybe that works as a good excuse for fanboys to do some hating when a significant graphically inferior port of a game - like Ghostbusters - does get released.
Both =========================================== Alone in the Dark (630 horizonal lines). CoD3 (624). CoD4 (600). CoD5 (600). CoD6 (600 - game is finished). Bionic Commando (640). Prototype (640). Saints Row 2 (640). Wanted (640). MK vs DC (576). Jericho (560 PS3, ??? X360). Conan (592 PS3, 576 X360). Fifa 2007 (??? PS3, 675 X360).
< 720 on PS3, >= 720 lines on X360 =========================================== Guitar Hero 3 (585 PS3, 720 X360). Guitar Hero Aerosmith (585 PS3, 720 X360). Guitar Hero World Tour (585 PS3, 720 X360). Tony Hawks Proving Ground (576 PS3, 720 X360). Dark Sector (640 PS3, 720 X360). Fracture (648 PS3, 720 X360). Ghostbusters (540 PS3, 720 X360). GTA 4 (640 PS3, 720 X360). Lord of the Rings Conquest (640 PS3, 720 X360). MX vs ATV (576 PS3, 720 X360). Bioshock (680 PS3, 720 X360). The Darkness (576 PS3, 720 X360). Far Cry 2 (692 PS3, 720 X360).
< 720 on X360, >= 720 lines on PS3 =========================================== Tony Hawks Project 8 (585 X360, 720 PS3). ES IV Oblivion (600 X360, 720 PS3). Ninja Gaiden 2 (585 X360, Sigma & S2 PS3 = 720).
Exclusives - X360 =========================================== PGR 3 (600). Halo 3 (640). Perfect Dark Zero (640). PES 6 (576). Star Ocean 4 (702, 496 in battle). Tomb Raider Legend (600). Tomb Raider Underworld (576). NCAA Football 08 (600). FIFA 2006 (576).
JimSteele, the vast majority that you play on 360 don't run at 720p? And yet you only name 2 games?
Because if you actually read the damn post, I'm not attempting to give you a comprehensive list, but pointing out that even 1st party flagship exclusives are guilty of it.
But I'll concede that "vast majority" was a gross exaggeration. The percentage isn't exactly low though.
One could also argue that having blown the "Full HD" trumpet Sony should be pulling out some proper 1080p examples!
We all know that Sony execs were talking about what's possible on the PS3, but it is up to programmers to do that & different games have different requirements! Some games are 1920x1080 @ 60fps, but certainly not most - or all.
Besides, we're talking about company executives here... How many of those do you actually believe?
It's 2009. Aren't we beyond referencing quotes from 2005?
But...if I'm not mistaken your list shows it to be the PS3 that is worst afflicted! I would have to pull the Oliver Twist and ask for more pixels!
Put simply, many games are developed for the PC/X360, then ported to PS3. The quality of the PS3 conversion depends on whether the PS3 can run the game comparably with the minimal possible changes / effort to the code base. If not, the developers have several choices.
1. Leave it as it is. 2. Accept the programmer must drop the frame rate. 3. Accept the programmer must drop the resolution. 4. Give the conversion to a better PS3 programmer.
There is more pressure these days on developers to get games running comparably on PS3, but as most consumers don't know & won't care, developers might not either. Listen to / read thebitbag.com forums + warzone podcast ep's 45 and 46.
PS3 only developers have programmers that are better able to exploit the available technology. You won't see multi-platform developers supporting YouTube modes, or screenshot modes, or custom soundtracks in many cases (same goes for >= 720p, 60fps). Most dev's just want to get the games out there supporting as many platforms as possible. It doesn't have all that much to do with what the PS3 is capable of, it's more to do with the PS3 not really being an easy platform to port to. It's like saying Steve Cram couldn't keep up with Usain Bolt in the well known 100m sprint, but similarly - Bolt would not be able to handle Kenenisa Bekele in the more obscure 5000m race.
Developers who build a separate version from scratch for the PS3 usually get comparable results, sometimes better, so it isn't as though PS3 ONLY owners are missing out on anything that comes out. The argument on here used to be that the PS3 had no games. Likewise, I've noticed that in terms of audio - the PS3 consistently sounds better. Also, you won't see Gran Turismo 5 on any other platform. If you want Sony's games - you've got to buy the platform, it's as simple as that.
You've also missed out quite a lot of sub par 720p ps3 games in your little list.
godfather 2 The Chronicles of Riddick dark athena Silent Hill Homecoming Street Fighter IV(parts of it apparently) Midnight Club Los Angeles Beijing 2008 Viking Battle for Asgard
^ The above list are just games i chose on my 360 ahead of the ps3 versions..There's far more sub 720p ps3 games than that if we go back a bit further(which i don't want to do).
So basically i was right, the ps3 is the biggest culprit and it's one of the main reasons i choose the 360 versions of the same game over the ps3 one.
Am still trying to decide which console is most worthy of my money so this is a good discussion for me.
Killzone 2 is what stumps me in all honesty. I've historically been very dubious of Sony's statements about the power of the cell but all aside they seem to have pulled off the prettiest console shooter ever....
If I could be utterly sure that the PS3 is able to attain levels of graphical excellence that the 360 cannot then I would probably swing that way.
So...sell it to me Lord Von. This is your chance to do Sony the ultimate service.
You've also missed out quite a lot of sub par 720p ps3 games in your little list.
A lot? Hardly.
godfather 2 The Chronicles of Riddick dark athena Silent Hill Homecoming Street Fighter IV(parts of it apparently) Midnight Club Los Angeles Beijing 2008 Viking Battle for Asgard
^ The above list are just games i chose on my 360 ahead of the ps3 versions..There's far more sub 720p ps3 games than that if we go back a bit further(which i don't want to do).
You mean - which you CAN'T do, because you don't know and have no source that offers that information besides the Beyond3d forums.
So basically i was right, the ps3 is the biggest culprit and it's one of the main reasons i choose the 360 versions of the same game over the ps3 one.
As I stated in my post - I focused on games with < 720 horizontal lines as it's that which makes the most noticable difference. N.B. on those PS3 versions of multi-platform titles.
* Beijing 2008 (1024x76. * Godfather 2 (1200x720). * Riddick 2 (1024x720). * Silent Hill Homecoming (1024x576). * SF 4 (1280x720 - is 720p). 630p sections are on character intro's only. * Midnight Club LA (960x720). * Viking Asgard (960x720).
Coincidentally 960 and 1024 lines are both upscaled to 1280 using the PS3's upscaler. Godfather 2 (if really 1200 pixels and not 1280 - hard to believe) is most likely centred on screen - it's not a compatible resolution to upscale.
If you want to specifically talk sub-720p (1280x720) titles, then the X360 also has more than what I listed - BE FAIR blagger...
* Don King Prizefighter = 1024x630. * Fable II = 1120x720. * Ikaruga = 540x720. * Sonic Unleashed = 880x720 (PS3 + X360).
So basically - for the case of a mere 7 extra PS3 / multi-platform titles (total of 20 games), when I've given you another 4 extra X360 ones (12 or so X360 sub 720p exclusive games) from a catalogue of hundreds of games you're not 'right', you're just a loud mouth tw@t.
If I could be utterly sure that the PS3 is able to attain levels of graphical excellence that the 360 cannot then I would probably swing that way.
So...sell it to me Lord Von. This is your chance to do Sony the ultimate service.
Quite simply, I have a PS3 and a X360. KillZone 2's graphics are definitely better than Gears 2, I don't care what anyone here says to the contrary. I've got both & played both on a full 1080p (1920x1080) display. Gears 2 is a much slower game than KZ2 - which makes a mockery of all the people who complain about KZ2's "weight". For me it all seems like double standards with X360 fanboys just trying to throw weight behind their console. I think Sony have really made up a lot of ground in '08 & '09.
You won't get KillZone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5, inFAMOUS, etc on the X360 or PC. If you want to play those games, then it's really as simple as that. Metal Gear Solid 4 is almost certainly my game of 2008 - I can't recommend it enough.
Ika'blinking'ruga, blimey you are really scraping the barrel now LordVonPS3
"You mean - which you CAN'T do, because you don't know and have no source that offers that information besides the Beyond3d forums."
^ Now we know where you get all your info from
I was spot on with my original post, the ps3 is the biggest culprit on 'multiplatform games' regarding running under 720p, hence the reason why i choose the 360 versions mainly over the ps3 versions. Surely you're not going to argue that point futher? After-all, that was my original point
Ika'blinking'ruga, blimey you are really scraping the barrel now LordVonPS3
I find that funny considering the number of X360 EX DREAMCAST owners who were banging on about Ikaruga in this forum. Of course, then it was released and everyone found it was too damn difficult. Buyer's remorse anyone?
I also found it funny how you listed those specific games claiming to want to own them, when most of them are crap. You got your information from the Beyond3d forums and then tried to pass those games off as games you want / own - which is no doubt a lie and only serves to show how full of sh*t you are.
^ Now we know where you get all your info from
ALL? Hardly. That doesn't mean I don't use (or appear) on the Beyond3d forums (in another guise). I get my info from many different sources, including development SDK's...
I was spot on with my original post, the ps3 is the biggest culprit on 'multiplatform games' regarding running under 720p, hence the reason why i choose the 360 versions mainly over the ps3 versions. Surely you're not going to argue that point futher?
Yes, I am & have done - effectively.
For the case of maybe 20 multi-platform games where the PS3 version has a slightly worse resolution, the X360 has 15 other multi-plat + exclusive games where it runs at sub-720p. PS3 exclusives are almost all 720p+, but for some strange reason - despite being THE ONLY TARGET PLATFORM - the X360 didn't manage that.
If someone had to choose either the X360 or the PS3 based on this information, they'd know that (a) Many games are sub 720p on both consoles (b) where the PS3 version of a multi-platform game is worse - it's not by that much, (c) PS3 exclusives that you can get nowhere else are almost always 720p minimum and X360 exclusives are sometimes 720p minimum and other times not - plus you can get some of those games on PC - where they may run at a superior resolution AND frame rate.
Ika'blinking'ruga, blimey you are really scraping the barrel now LordVonPS3
I find that funny considering the number of X360 EX DREAMCAST owners who were banging on about Ikaruga in this forum. Of course, then it was released and everyone found it was too damn difficult. Buyer's remorse anyone?
^ Now we know where you get all your info from
ALL? Hardly. That doesn't mean I don't use (or appear) on the Beyond3d forums (in another guise). I get my info from many different sources, including development SDK's...
I was spot on with my original post, the ps3 is the biggest culprit on 'multiplatform games' regarding running under 720p, hence the reason why i choose the 360 versions mainly over the ps3 versions. Surely you're not going to argue that point futher?
Yes, I am & have done - effectively.
For the case of maybe 20 multi-platform games where the PS3 version has a slightly worse resolution, the X360 has 15 other multi-plat + exclusive games where it runs at sub-720p. PS3 exclusives are almost all 720p+, but for some strange reason - despite being THE ONLY TARGET PLATFORM - the X360 didn't manage that.
Your argument is full of sh*t.
I do like the way you throw 'exclusives' into the pot to try to make the figures look closer between the 2 machines
I'd say it's more likely 25 ps3 multiplatform games and about 7 xbox360 multiplatform games that run under 720p(the majority of those 7 or so run under 720p on ps3 as well). Quite a big gap i'd say
But of course you are blinded by your madness and won't accept anything different
I should now bring up a thread about how many multiplatform games run worse(framerate)on ps3 than 360. I'm sure you'll throw all sorts of things into the equation(like you've done here)on why that's the case. It doesn't matter why it's the case, the fact is it IS the case.
The ps3 does have some great exclusives, it's all i play on mine. Multiplatform games i play only on the 360, unless by some miracle the ps3 version is better somehow(or cheaper).
I do like the way you throw 'exclusives' into the pot to try to make the figures look closer between the 2 machines
NO. I throw EXCLUSIVES into the pot - because they're relevant. If the game is available on X360 and PC, then the PC is going to be a preferred option unless the X360 is running lovely in HD at 720p+ resolution at 60fps. I'm also making the point that the X360 is the TARGET PLATFORM for the game and it didn't make 720p. PS3 exclusives on the other hand almost always make 720p native, but then it is quite right to say in that case that you won't see those games anywhere else.
I'd say it's more likely 25 ps3 multiplatform games and about 7 xbox360 multiplatform games that run under 720p(the majority of those 7 or so run under 720p on ps3 as well).
More likely? Evidence? Citations? Blagger by name, blagger by nature.
Quite a big gap i'd say
Not a big gap I'd say.
But of course you are blinded by your madness and won't accept anything different
Not from you.
I should now bring up a thread about how many multiplatform games run worse(framerate)on ps3 than 360. <snip> It doesn't matter why it's the case, the fact is it IS the case.
You're free to bring up whatever you like. It's a free country & I don't dispute that some X360 games run at slightly superior resolutions / frame rates. I'm just pointing out that it's USUALLY not a big difference. If you had to choose a X360 or PS3, you'd still have as great an experience playing MOST of those games on the PS3. A few games - like Ghostbusters - are clearly inferior on PS3, but most of those that are slightly inferior (resolution wise) aren't by that much. If you look at the resolution of Ghostbusters - it's clear just how much worse it is. Terminal Reality did a very basic job of porting it, in spite of everything they'd said beforehand... Ghostbusters is a game to get on the X360 - for anyone with XBL - for sure, as the PC version has no online. For games like GTA 4 however, it's a toss up... The PS3 version has a blur filter & actually looks *much* less grainy. The X360 version has the DLC on the other hand, but many people haven't even bothered to finish the game... Midnight Club LA - slightly worse resolution but not that much, so if you're not paying for XBL gold - you can play it free online on PSN.
You can also argue XBox Live if you like, but after trying that for 3 months, I'm loathe to spend money with Microsoft just to play my games online when I can do it for free on PSN. I've yet to make a decision on XBL but the lure of 8Khz cross game voice chat alone isn't doing it for me.
The ps3 does have some great exclusives, it's all i play on mine. Multiplatform games i play only on the 360, unless by some miracle the ps3 version is better somehow(or cheaper).
That's what freedom of choice gives you!
He'll add anything to make his list look bulkier.
Ikaruga < 720p = fact... and you'll lie blatantly to try and make people believe your point...
Been away finishing my latest game, which is now submitted to apple and will be out for the iPhone in a couple of weeks...
Final points on resolutions here from me...
Pixel counters are obsessed with Vertical res, but often horizontal resolution is sacrificed and no-one mentions it, because the stupid HD definitions are just vertical and you can render 320x1080p and put a 1080p check box on your PR and packaging..
Pixel counters are often inaccurate as they don't take into account Anti-aliasing. Many 360 titles are running in apparently lower vertical resolutions because they are using 2 or 4 times the resolution for anti-aliasing. OK, if one format is doing 1024x565 with 2x FSAA, and the other is doing 1024x720 with none, the first one is pushing the most pixels and will have the better result on screen.
Been away finishing my latest game, which is now submitted to apple and will be out for the iPhone in a couple of weeks...
Ping me when it's on the store.
Pixel counters are obsessed with Vertical res, but often horizontal resolution is sacrificed and no-one mentions it,
Actually, we covered the point about sub 720p horizontal resolutions as well as vertical. Additional X360/PS3 sub 720p games were listed earlier in this thread after the games I listed that had sub 720p vertical resolutions. There weren't that many extra ones to be classed as sub 720p due to horizontal res and several also affected the X360.
...because the stupid HD definitions are just vertical and you can render 320x1080p and put a 1080p check box on your PR and packaging..
You're completely wrong about the packaging + PR. The 720p, 1080i and 1080p tick-boxes represent supported video modes and have almost f*** all to do with native resolutions. That's mostly why I was b*tching so much on the Bitbag about developer's duties and the "service" provided by pixel counters - it all stemmed from the Microsoft "lies" that Forza 3 runs @ 1080p/60fps (when really it's not that natively). Native resolutions at sub 720p, 1080i and 1080p are almost always upscaled to supported video modes, but in very odd cases the image is centred. A "1080p game" does not require 1080 horizontal lines & it's absolutely wrong to say that. A 1080p game supports a TV set 1080p mode, that's all. For example, the native vertical resolution for the game may be 1024 - or less. MANY people with 1080i sets complained that games supported 720p and not 1080i, which used to be a resolution + frame rate based NIGHTMARE for developers on the PS3 (due to number of rendered pixels, memory buffer requirements and lack of a hardware upscaler before f/w v1.8 - released mid '07). That's a fact which frankly I've been through once before on the bitbag forums. No need for me to write it again - I am 100% correct. See earlier posts here for a link to the relevant forum posts + podcasts.
Pixel counters are often inaccurate as they don't take into account Anti-aliasing.
That's wrong too. Pixel counters do take AA into account & always report the native resolution and AA employed. That's a fact. As for being inaccurate, I call bullsh*t. The methods are published, checked & very sound indeed. Work done on each game is also checked by others and various screen captures are checked to confirm. Frankly if you think you can prove otherwise, I'd challenge you to prove people wrong on Beyond3d. I think if you look properly, you'll find yourself agreeing with the results.
Many 360 titles are running in apparently lower vertical resolutions because they are using 2 or 4 times the resolution for anti-aliasing. OK, if one format is doing 1024x565 with 2x FSAA, and the other is doing 1024x720 with none, the first one is pushing the most pixels and will have the better result on screen.
The topic of whether to have AA is subjective. In some games no AA works just fine, in other games AA is a must have. X360 developers often seem to throw 2xAA into their games when really 2xAA doesn't offer much visual benefit. That very point has been discussed at length on Beyond3d and it is something I agree strongly with based on the results. Effective looking AA really needs to be 4x. Many of the same games on PS3 throw QC / blur filter on because the PS3 hardware doesn't support 4xAA (where it's done - it's done in software) so that still requires additional processing.
The 'better result on screen' is subjective. As I've said in a previous post, GTA 4 on PS3 has a slightly lower v-res and has a blur filter (not AA) while GTA 4 on X360 has 2xAA. The X360 version of the game does look sharper (you can see each pixel clearly) but also - for the same reason it looks far more grainy (something I've noticed on a lot of X360 games actually), while the PS3 version looks nicer overall thanks most probably to the blur filter.
And as for the relative merits of 2x FSAA, that completely depends.
2x AA applied vertically helps a ton with racing games where the majority of surfaces in the view are horizontal. Apply the 2x res boost horizontally and it's nowhere near as effective. I've studied this carefully myself while developing graphics engines for 3 console racing titles.
If it's just about supporting a 1080p set, then every 360 game should have 1080p on the box now?
No! Not every game supports a 1080p video mode - even if your TV set is 1080p. Your TV set will change to a lower video mode to run the game. Gears of War for example supports 480p, 720p and 1080i.
I thought you could only apply for the 1080p box flash if you use a 1080 line front buffer?
No dude, you're wrong.
Here's an example... X360 box for CoD4: HDTV 720p/1080i/1080p. The native resolution + AA is in fact: 1024x600 (2xAA).
The 1080p here is supported by upscaling, so your TV set doesn't need to drop down a video mode.
The problem is on both X360 and PS3. It's all about supporting a 1080p video mode. Hence as I said previously - my complaints about developers duties + the "service" provided by pixel counters. I feel developers should publicly state on their websites what each game's native resolution is, but there's no way they'll do that. The general consumer only needs to know that the game will work on his / her 720p / 1080i / 1080p TV set.
It is due to this discrepancy in video mode and quality that I am able to realistically call people out when they talk about whether native resolution matters. I can see a difference - pixel for pixel.
And as for the relative merits of 2x FSAA, that completely depends.
2x AA applied vertically helps a ton with racing games where the majority of surfaces in the view are horizontal. Apply the 2x res boost horizontally and it's nowhere near as effective. I've studied this carefully myself while developing graphics engines for 3 console racing titles.
I did say that it is subjective. I've seen some fantastic subject matter debates on the differences between no AA, 2xAA, 4xAA and QC. 4xAA is usually best, QC I would say preferable for some things.
Even though you can see there is a difference, I don't feel that the difference between 2xAA / no AA gives very much to reduce jaggies and improve the overall look of a game.
The accuracy of pixel counters is a bit of a distraction point, although I maintain it's a lot harder to accurately spot if something has been filtered down from 1280 to 640, then scaled by the video out to 720.
The point I was making is games resolutions should be multiplied by any AA level when comparisons are made. 1280 x 640 (2xAA) vs 1280 x 720 (no AA). (and AA is often omitted entirely) looks a lot more explicit when written as 2560 x 640 vs 1280 x 720 1280 x 1280 vs 1280 x 720
Native res certainly does matter. Both in terms of image quality, and giving an accurate indication of what the machine is actually doing. After all this thread started based on a comparison of which console performs the best.
While it might OK to say, in very fast game at 60 fps, "it's hard to tell the difference between no AA and 2x AA" the simple fact is the one doing 2xAA is utilising a more graphical performance.
On the subject of exclusives, it's worth pointing out that that most of the 360 exclusives that are on LVPS3s list are very early ones. Perfect Dark, and PGR3 were launch titles and would never be expected to be pushing the machine. Halo 3 has defended itself enough in the fact that it's using a unique frame buffer set-up which uses 2 640 pixel high buffers. The res drop is not indicating a lack of pixel performance, it's essentially doing 1280.
The accuracy of pixel counters is a bit of a distraction point, although I maintain it's a lot harder to accurately spot if something has been filtered down from 1280 to 640, then scaled by the video out to 720.
I can understand why you'd say that, however, if you actually look at the technique that's used, you'll see it's applied to areas with a clear, diagonal step (not as hard to find as you might think). From the step you can determine the native resolution and also the AA.
The point I was making is games resolutions should be multiplied by any AA level when comparisons are made. 1280 x 640 (2xAA) vs 1280 x 720 (no AA). (and AA is often omitted entirely) looks a lot more explicit when written as 2560 x 640 vs 1280 x 720 1280 x 1280 vs 1280 x 720
I don't quite like the way you've put that.
To be clear, 2xAA would require 2 x frame buffer bandwidth and memory, so the game / CPU is doing more work - however, the front buffer still contains the complete / merged / final scene. You can't claim the GPU has to output 2 times the native resolution.
Native res certainly does matter. Both in terms of image quality, and giving an accurate indication of what the machine is actually doing.
Yep. If you haven't tried those 2 podcast episodes have a go. The Warzone is generally very entertaining.
On the subject of exclusives, it's worth pointing out that that most of the 360 exclusives that are on LVPS3s list are very early ones.
Ha ha... Well, it's well known that the X360 doesn't get as many exclusives as it once did. Amongst others, I can still count on modern games like Star Ocean 4 and Ninja Gaiden 2. You can put your AA comments to bed, they really don't make much difference and now it looks like all you're trying to do is big up Xenos bandwidth / memory performance. Halo 3 looks average at best these days, no-one cares if it has AA. It's certainly not up to KillZone 2's visual quality.
Speaking of KillZone 2... PS3 owners don't talk about totaling the resolutions of the 4MRT's (640x360 minimum - each), plus the Z-buffer, then adding that to the main buffer's 1280x720 native resolution to come out with some uber resolution that the game is "really running at". Oh and did I mention it also has QC? Something only the CELL + RSX combo can do maybe.
i have to agree with the post that it could do 100 fps or more it just depends on your pc with v sync enabled all my games run at 60fps as my tv has a refresh rate @ 60 but with vsync off most current games will get over 90 fps in 1080p (bar crysis about 50 fps)
The point I was making is games resolutions should be multiplied by any AA level when comparisons are made. 1280 x 640 (2xAA) vs 1280 x 720 (no AA). (and AA is often omitted entirely) looks a lot more explicit when written as 2560 x 640 vs 1280 x 720 1280 x 1280 vs 1280 x 720
I don't quite like the way you've put that.
To be clear, 2xAA would require 2 x frame buffer bandwidth and memory, so the game / CPU is doing more work - however, the front buffer still contains the complete / merged / final scene. You can't claim the GPU has to output 2 times the native resolution.
Lord, you clearly don't know what you're talking about here.
To do 2x FSAA, the back buffer IS twice the front buffer resolution on 1 axis. So the GPU IS using twice the fill-rate to render the scene. (the game / CPU is NOT doing anything more) The back buffer to front buffer copy is what applies the anti-aliasing by using filtering when scaling down to the Front buffer resolution. The most important and GPU stressing part here is the rendering of the back buffer. This is where any over draw is going to hurt. That's why many people do things like render particles to a lower res copy of the back buffer and re-composite the scene. This is the best kind of AA (when done with 2x res on both axis, or "4x".
Quincunx is a cheap blur. You can use QC to copy from a backbuffer which is the same size as the front buffer, but the 5 point sampling blurs the result. It's nothing like real SSAA.
Lord, you clearly don't know what you're talking about here.
To do 2x FSAA, the back buffer IS twice the front buffer resolution on 1 axis. So the GPU IS using twice the fill-rate to render the scene. (the game / CPU is NOT doing anything more) The back buffer to front buffer copy is what applies the anti-aliasing by using filtering when scaling down to the Front buffer resolution. The most important and GPU stressing part here is the rendering of the back buffer. This is where any over draw is going to hurt. That's why many people do things like render particles to a lower res copy of the back buffer and re-composite the scene. This is the best kind of AA (when done with 2x res on both axis, or "4x".
Quincunx is a cheap blur. You can use QC to copy from a backbuffer which is the same size as the front buffer, but the 5 point sampling blurs the result. It's nothing like real SSAA.
Actually I do. Though I'm not sure why you're referencing how 2xFSAA works now. You didn't mention 2xFSAA in your previous post with resolutions, you just said 2xAA. You've perhaps just made things slightly clearer with what you meant. Fair enough if that's what you want to imply.
AA techniques such as OGSS involves up-sampling the scene to a larger back buffer in order to sample each pixel, then down-sampling into the front buffer using AA. OGSS applied as 2xAA requires the back buffer to be 2x the horz + vert size. That's exactly what I meant by "2xAA would require 2 x frame buffer bandwidth and memory". By frame buffer here, I did indeed imply the back buffer. To render a larger co-ordinate set / scene in this way requires more CPU. QC is done in h/w on PS3 which is useful enough when 4xAA isn't similarly supported in h/w.
After my crushing victory over LordVonPS3 i thought he'd leave this thread alone, but now eltonbird has knocked him to the canvas yet again, leaving LordVonPS3 grasping around for his gumshield.
AA techniques such as OGSS involves up-sampling the scene to a larger back buffer in order to sample each pixel, then down-sampling into the front buffer using AA.
For a man who likes to throw official terminology and acronyms at people to sound more knowledgeable, this sentence makes no sense.
You do not "up-sample" anything. You create your scene by rendering more pixels to a larger frame buffer. "up-sampling the scene to a larger back buffer in order to sample each pixel" is gibberish.
OGSS applied as 2xAA requires the back buffer to be 2x the horz + vert size.
2x the horizontal, OR vertical Resolution.
That's exactly what I meant by "2xAA would require 2 x frame buffer bandwidth and memory". By frame buffer here, I did indeed imply the back buffer.
Right, that's the first technically correct thing you've said..
To render a larger co-ordinate set / scene in this way requires more CPU.
No. You're simply rendering the same scene at a higher resolution, which is purely a pixel rate issue.
QC is done in h/w on PS3 which is useful enough when 4xAA isn't similarly supported in h/w.
What stops the PS3 using 4xAA? It has bilinear filtering, so it can downsample a 2048x1440 back buffer to a 1024x720 front buffer? That would be "4xAA". It might not be able to do 4x "Multisampling" in hardware, but that doesn't mean it can't do 4xAA.
There is no-one here to challenge the might of Lord Von, I'm throwing nukes.
If someone wants to spout information at me about FSAA, I can most certainly keep up. I can also talk about MSAA, SSAA, CSAA, TSAA, TMAA, OGSS and RGSS. There's a number of AA techniques.
One minute eltonbird is writing about 2xMSAA (Multi-Sampling Anti-Aliasing). This is where multiple checks are done per pixel at different locations within the pixel to see if they all match the same polygon. If they do match, then no AA is applied. If there are multiple polygons present in the pixel, it takes a colour sample from each point it previously checked and blends. MSAA takes the 3d scene + depth value into account.
The next minute eltonbird is writing about FSAA (Full-screen anti-aliasing) which is not 'object' based AA. MSAA is a form (technique) of FSAA. FSAA involves rendering the full frame back buffer at 2x (or 4x) the display resolution, then down-samples (does pixel colour averaging) down to match the display resolution.
QC filters a pixel's neighbouring 5 pixels across 2 samples and the overall quality is not too dissimilar to that provided by 4xAA. The pixel shader stores each pixel twice and therefore requires twice the memory bandwidth of the front buffer. Its memory requirements are as per 2xFSAA. It is just a different AA technique.
I expect eltonbird only talks about FSAA because maybe that's what he's used previously in his racing game that he mentioned. That's fair enough... As for the merits of 2xFSAA (as this is for some reason the 'hot topic' here), lets take a subjective look at these 3 screenshots.
1. No AA (default) > http://www.beyond3d.com/images/reviews/GammaChrome/iq_6200_1xaa.png
2a. 2xFSAA (Rotated grid) > http://www.beyond3d.com/images/reviews/GammaChrome/iq_s18_2xaa_old.png - It destroys the intricate lighting on the electricity pylon. - It makes the railings on the left thicker than they really are. - One or two of the power lines / railings have become visible - but now these require further AA. - Some of the rougher edges around the distant buildings have been smoothed quite nicely (its not all bad)!
2b. 2xFSAA (Ordered grid) > http://www.beyond3d.com/images/reviews/GammaChrome/iq_s18_2xaa_new.png A horrible nasty, blurry mess that despite being anti-aliased looks rather blocky.
3. 4xFSAA > http://www.beyond3d.com/images/reviews/GammaChrome/iq_6200_4xaa.png No doubt the best of the lot. It's still sharp, the detail is mostly there but the edges are much much better.
Overall, I'd rather take the 4xFSAA or none. The 2xFSAA routines obviously try to help, but while they do make one or two things nicer, they leave a trail of destruction in their wake - just like me.
I would like to hear from LordVon, how the CPU load is increased by using a larger back buffer. I need a laugh this morning. You do not "up-sample" anything. For a man who likes to throw official terminology and acronyms at people to sound more knowledgeable, this sentence makes no sense.
Well I am laughing - at you. With Ordered Grid Super Sampling (OGSS), the game engine co-ordinates are up-sampled for the scene and the game is effectively 'zoomed' & rendered into a larger back buffer.
The technique is explained at the following link. There's nothing wrong with my terminology. http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/37/4
What stops the PS3 using 4xAA? It might not be able to do 4x "Multisampling" in hardware, but that doesn't mean it can't do 4xAA.
Nothing (besides memory limitations). I made it clear that it doesn't have any 4xAA techniques in h/w.
Stating that view coordinates need to be scales to support a frame buffer of different dimensions in not really "upsampling".
In fact, when you program anti-aliasing manually, (not just asking the graphics lib to do it, as you can with DX), this is something you just do. Your back buffer is higher res, so your view port value are bigger.
You are creating more samples by using a larger back buffer. You're not "zooming" anything.
I don't need Beyond 3D to tell me the techniques. I've programmed them.
Why don't you stop reading and listening to the entire internet, which is clearly where you get all your info. Actually show us something you've programmed perhaps? Where are your credentials? Anyone can hide behind a silly alias and cut and paste from websites..
Stating that view coordinates need to be scales to support a frame buffer of different dimensions in not really "upsampling".
In fact, when you program anti-aliasing manually, (not just asking the graphics lib to do it, as you can with DX), this is something you just do. Your back buffer is higher res, so your view port value are bigger.
You are creating more samples by using a larger back buffer. You're not "zooming" anything.
Wrong. You need to read the technique as stated. I quote.....
The co-ordinates supplied by the API target a specific screen resolution. To reach the AA requirements, the co-ordinates are up-sampled by at least a factor of 2 (horz + vert) to create a sufficient number of sub-samples for AA. That up-sampling increases the screen resolution. Vertex positions are up-sampled thus ensuring the poly is in the same relative position in screen space. All geometry is zoomed by a factor of two in horizontal and vertical directions. Simply put, everything is twice as big. We thus have four times the number of pixels drawn as compared to no up-sampling being per-formed. We render all the up-sampled geometry of this frame as we normally would, but to an off-screen (invisible) buffer.
I don't need Beyond 3D to tell me the techniques. I've programmed them.
I'm sure we'd like an exhaustive list of every game you've written, the native resolution and AA employed... Well? We're waiting. Hasn't got anything to do with this discussion though, does it?
Anyone can hide behind a silly alias and cut and paste from websites..
What's hilarious is you can't prove me 'wrong' which it seems is all you're desperate to do.
If I cut and paste from anywhere I offer a citation / source, otherwise it is all stuff that I wrote, by my understanding and through whatever means that information has made its way into my brain. That's pretty much the same way most people 'learn'.
As for silly aliases, eltonbird seems as silly as they come!
Beyond 3d's article is not a bible. In fact I detest the terminology they are using. Saying you are upsampling or zooming things, implied that there is an "original" version to be zoomed or upsampled. this is not what you are doing.
If you are asking your graphics libs to give you a 640x480 buffer, and asking for a specific AA type, then you *could* think of it that way. But in reality, all it's doing is creating a larger framebuffer and viewport dimensions internally. It's not an additional step of adjusting co-ordinates, it's all wrapped up in your basic projection.
If you are doing your AA manually, as I have in the past, you just create your back buffer at the size you want. This gives you the freedom to adjust the proportion of the back buffer you are using to dynamically adjust your AA quality if things get too intense, (which is why most people do set this stuff up themselves).
A manual set up also lets you adjust the multisample mode on top of any super-sampling being done, based on your requirements.
And as for trying to prove you wrong, you're paranoid.
I pointed out that when you were comparing games resolution, you were just quoting vertical res, any AA involved was being ignored. In reality, the 360 versions of almost every game that's on both, render more pixels on 360.
Your post was trying to make out that the RSX cam render as many pixels, or more than, the Xenos. Which is rubbish.. irrespective of any usage of the Cell.
The fact that some exclusive games on 360 use lower than 720p, is not evidence that it's "as bad as" the PS3 for fill rate. It just means those games are using multipass techniques, or are simply in a position of having unavoidable overdraw.
No-one said it is a bible, however, a lot of people use this site to discuss and talk about technology - including developers, pixel counters and the like. The details of these conversations are well published in articles all over the net... *cough* Ghostbusters *cough*.
In fact I detest the terminology they are using.
Saying you are upsampling or zooming things, implied that there is an "original" version to be zoomed or upsampled. this is not what you are doing.
I think it is clear from the text that the technique being described is that the back buffer size is 2x/4x the front buffer (i.e. the target which you are rendering on screen). By having the larger buffer you've got more points to sample.
Anyway, you may 'detest' the terminology used - but who cares? It isn't as though you're offering any documentation here. Nor are you offering any definition of terms. Likewise, you can't argue that it's not a valid technique. In fact, if you look back 2 or 3 posts, you'll see that those screenshots I added ILLUSTRATE the differences between RGSS and OGSS. I'm able to back up everything I know with evidence. You may be writing some high level guff from your experience, but no-one reading any of this is going to learn anything - or be educated by you... and that my fine feathered friend - is where I have a problem. I do not come on here to merely say X is better than Y because of technique XJF... People like proof. If you're not going to hand over documentation or examples then really, you've no place arguing with people who will do this...
In fact I could say - you're just another one of those developers who won't tell us the native resolution of his games, even though you say native resolution is important! LordVonPS3 on the other hand, lives behind the curtain. I want to see the wizard...
And as for trying to prove you wrong, you're paranoid.
You are!
I pointed out that when you were comparing games resolution, you were just quoting vertical res, any AA involved was being ignored. In reality, the 360 versions of almost every game that's on both, render more pixels on 360.
Does not. The Xenos processes more pixel data internally and has the eDRAM to manage AA'd buffers, but the output is still whatever the native resolution is.
Your post was trying to make out that the RSX cam render as many pixels, or more than, the Xenos. Which is rubbish.. irrespective of any usage of the Cell.
Well f**k you too, because I never said that at all. I said that 2xAA doesn't make much of a difference and that whether it looks better or not is subjective. Nothing to do with GPU pixel performance.
The fact that some exclusive games on 360 use lower than 720p, is not evidence that it's "as bad as" the PS3 for fill rate. It just means those games are using multipass techniques, or are simply in a position of having unavoidable overdraw.
The question there is why have multipass techniques in the first place if it cripples your resolution? As I said, the AA often isn't really worth it... or - on the other hand - is it worth it... because X360 games always seem to have grainy textures / graphics.
No, I didn't try and document anything, or define terms.
I simply pointed out that saying a 360 game runs at < 720p is not meaningful indication of performance if it's doing 2x AA and the PS3 is not.
The lack of actual data for the examples given is what I pointed out.
Considering you claim to know so much about AA techniques..
You can't claim the GPU has to output 2 times the native resolution.
To render a larger co-ordinate set / scene in this way requires more CPU.
I hope you are retracting both these statements?
The result after AA is not what indicates the pixel performance the GPU has achieved. The back buffer rendered pre-AA is what matters. If I render a scene at 2048x2048, then filter it down to an icon of 64x64. Have I pixel shaded 4194304 pixels or 4096??
I simply pointed out that saying a 360 game runs at < 720p is not meaningful indication of performance if it's doing 2x AA and the PS3 is not.
Performance of what exactly though? That's my point EXACTLY. I can see what you *want* to say - and that is that Xenos internals outperform the RSX, which in various ways it does, however, you don't account for the CELL's input (N.B. CPU) to graphics processing with the RSX and what's possible there.
Perhaps you would like me to show you where CELL SPE's process the 4MRT buffers for KillZone 2, apply blurs / AA filters & how the RSX farms those processes off to CELL SPE's to get the result's (i.e. those buffers) for the next frame? There's always a bottleneck at the RSX in terms of how many pixels it renders, but the CELL is effectively doing a lot of rendering work for it.
The result after AA is not what indicates the pixel performance the GPU has achieved. The back buffer rendered pre-AA is what matters.
See again you are trying to limit this to what the 'GPU' has achieved and to compare the Xenos direct with the RSX.
If I render a scene at 2048x2048, then filter it down to an icon of 64x64. Have I pixel shaded 4194304 pixels or 4096??
No, I'm quite aware how KZ2 uses the SPUs to composite it's final scene from it's attribute buffer. This is common sense in the system they use. (It's also worth noting that the attribute buffer is built by the RSX alone (after SPU geometry optimising naturally) and it's limited by fill rate performance.)
This is the exception rather than the rule.
This still doesn't change the fact that the resolution being produced by most 360 titles is higher than the PS3 versions.
No, I'm quite aware how KZ2 uses the SPUs to composite it's final scene from it's attribute buffer. This is common sense in the system they use.
This is the exception rather than the rule.
I'd like to see proof of that - per game please. Where native resolutions + AA is being shown on Beyond3d, they cannot tell how that AA is achieved - just what the AA level is by observation.
This still doesn't change the fact that the resolution being produced by most 360 titles is higher than the PS3 versions.
Again, I'd like to see proof of that please. As far as you know, other programmers may also be using the CELL+RSX to render more detail for scenes. From what I understand, Street Fighter 4 is another one due to the cell shading technique being employed - it wasn't possible just using the RSX. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the game is being ported from the X360, many programmers most likely won't care, so in those instances, you'll get a duff PS3 version and in terms of pixels being pushed around - any direct Xenos vs RSX battle will be won by the Xenos. For other games, certainly those developed from scratch for the PS3 - a programmer can do as he pleases.
Here we go again! The assertion that the Cell can help the RSX in any way other than vertex load optimisation and will produce graphical leaps on PS3 titles over the next few years. It's yet to be proven, and short of bypassing the RSX completely for the odd bit of software rendering, not likely to be the way forward. Geometry processing and vertex shading is going to be done on the RSX. Shader fragment compilation and scene processing is where the Cell will help out, as it doing now in most titles.
SFIV : Cell shading and edge detection requires processing of vertices. Doing this on the 360 GPU was obviously fine, but that is why they'll have had to use Cell processing on SF IV. I'd put my house on it.
The assertion that the Cell can help the RSX in any way other than vertex load optimisation and will produce graphical leaps on PS3 titles over the next few years. It's yet to be proven, and short of bypassing the RSX completely for the odd bit of software rendering, not likely to be the way forward. Geometry processing and vertex shading is going to be done on the RSX. Shader fragment compilation and scene processing is where the Cell will help out, as it doing now in most titles.
Firstly I'd like you to define "graphical leaps" for us... I'd say that God of War 3, Uncharted 2, KillZone 2 all represent "graphical leaps" over what's currently available on any current gen console. All of these games are playable in some form at the very least. How do you refute this claim? I've not seen anything to match them on the X360.
SFIV : Cell shading and edge detection requires processing of vertices. Doing this on the 360 GPU was obviously fine, but that is why they'll have had to use Cell processing on SF IV. I'd put my house on it.
SF4 was a X360 port to PS3 (Yoshinori Ono quoted as saying so), which then hit a graphics snag and needed someone with PS3 skills to sort out the mess. Point being - it was then made possible using the CELL. The PS3 can do great things if you work to its strengths instead of complaining it doesn't have the general purpose programming capabilities of the X360. It could have been an even better game on the PS3 if it had been written from scratch on that platform, but of course - that was never on the agenda.
In fact, to get back to the f**king subject matter... I'd like to know exactly what id are doing with the Rage port to PS3. The question is - how exactly is id making use of the SPE's and what jobs exactly are being sent that way?
The PS3 can do great things if you work to its strengths instead of complaining it doesn't have the general purpose programming capabilities of the X360. It could have been an even better game on the PS3 if it had been written from scratch on that platform, but of course - that was never on the agenda.
I think thats one of the major points here, in a nutshell.
For developers doing multi-format, the PS3 is a pain in the butt.
The PS3 can do great things if you work to its strengths instead of complaining it doesn't have the general purpose programming capabilities of the X360. It could have been an even better game on the PS3 if it had been written from scratch on that platform, but of course - that was never on the agenda.
I think thats one of the major points here, in a nutshell.
For developers doing multi-format, the PS3 is a pain in the butt.
I would prefer it if you acknowledged that porting an existing code base from the X360 to the PS3 is in some ways more difficult than writing a PS3 code base from scratch. You'll normally have less time to do any port and there's more work involved to make the game comparable on PS3 because the code base won't translate easily. Developer resource is also a key factor - especially if your best PS3 programmers are working on something else.
Developers doing multi-format should concentrate on the PS3 first & port the game to X360. If the main project is on the PS3, that project might take a bit longer, but it would be quicker to do a subsequent port to X360 than the other way around (current practice). The problem at the moment is the (Wii and) X360 has the superior install base, but it could be justified based on channel revenue.
Multi-platform games would hopefully take advantage of the PS3 feature set (screenshot, youtube, custom music, voice chat, trophies) if done first on that platform. Most / similar features would still make it to the X360 and any need to drop graphics detail would be dependent on the compression needed to get texture data to fit on a single DVD. I'd rather see less compression on X360 textures - not more, but it doesn't seem to be bothering many people. The PS1 had a lot of dithering and that did well enough!
The only other thing would be if the game really took advantage of the CELL bandwidth, in which case okay, some work would need to be done to get that code working even if slightly crippled on the X360, using other shortcuts / techniques to get it to work. At least graphically (fps & resolution) the game would perform similarly.
Blu-ray to Apple TV is attacking the converter market with the intensity as an earthquake registered 7. 8 on the Richter scale. The Blu-ray to Apple TV rocks the customers with strong functions as converting blue ray to Apple TV. Not only suit for the one type of Blu ray to Apple TV, the Blu-ray to Apple TV also supports the conversion of such video formats as avi, mpeg, mp4, mpg, wmv and so on. Much more, the Blu ray to Apple TV can excerpt the audio formats as mp3, MP3, AC3, AAC, WMA, WAV, and OGG to Apple TV. It supports various devices such as iPod, iPhone, GPhone, PSP\PS3, XBox, Mobile Phone, Windows Mobile and so on. Blu ray to Apple TV, the best choice of you as you are converting Blu-ray to Apple TV. Come to have a try and you will like it!
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
, waits for the bu bu buh teh 4 disssssks
?
