Uncharted used less than half PS3's power

By Robert Purchese Published 6 August, 2008

Naughty Dog sees "great potential".

Naughty Dog used barely half of the PS3's power to run Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, one of the best-looking games on the console.

So says designer Richard Lemarchand, who says tools such as Edge - developed by senior first-party Sony programmers including some from Naughty Dog - are now in place and ready to begin harnessing the full power of the Cell processor.

Remember, the Cell processor is made up of eight Synergistic Processor Units, six of which can be used to do things at any one time.

"These guys are really old-school programmers: guys who are always looking to shave another cycle off an operation. And part of the skill of developing for the PlayStation 3 is getting the GPU to farm jobs out to the six SPUs - seeing which SPUs are idling and can take up some of the slack in a frame-to-frame kind of way," Lemarchand told ThreeSpeech.

"That's why we think we're probably only using 30 or 40 per cent of the power of the PS3 right now, and there's this great, untapped potential.

"All third-party developers can get the Edge libraries for free and are going to be able to use them in their own ways, to get more and more and more out of the PS3 over the years," he said.

Lemarchand went talked of the sense of sharing between first-party studios, trading "war stories" with Evolution (MotorStorm), Insomniac (Resistance), and Sucker Punch (InFamous).

More encouraging is the close bond Naughty Dog shares with Sony Santa Monica, which is developing God of War 3. Apparently the two studios meet reguarly to discuss development tactics over lunch.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune recently became the first Blu-ray title to offer Trophy support.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (121) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Turambar #1 4 years ago

    Do we really need to have this discussion again?

  • johnnybrn #2 4 years ago

    Ok then, show us this great potential!

    As the world waits with baited breath for the PS3 to be true 'next gen' because at the moment only 2 games have tapped that potential being MGS4 and Drakes.

  • anomagnus #3 4 years ago

    how much did haze use for the flame thrower? snark, snarf

  • the_dudefather #4 4 years ago

    'ps3lol'
    'celllol'
    '4dlol'
    'bluraylol'

    lets move on please

  • Der_tolle_Emil #5 4 years ago

    Miyamoto claimed that Super Mario 64 used only 60% of the N64 potential. Probably used less looking at the later titles - so maybe this Uncharted statement isn't all wrong. However I don't see the relevance as the same can be said for every title that launched during the first 1 1/2 years of any console.

  • Weezer #6 4 years ago

    Maybe they can use all that awesome processing power to get rid of the ubiquitous screen tearing in a sequel then.

  • bad09 #7 4 years ago

    The "potential" line is getting boring, less talk more action I say!

  • patchbox360 #8 4 years ago

    i can't play untapped potential

  • andijames #9 4 years ago

    Honestly there's more bitching in these threads than on a WAGS night out. Potential surely means untapped. The PS2 had some of its greatest games towards the end of it's cycle (GOW2, SOTC) and it happens with every console. The more you program for it the better you become. There's surely plenty left on the 360 too! Or has that all been realised?

  • Clive_Dunn #10 4 years ago

    Have we tapped the potential of the Emotion engine yet ?

  • lambtron #11 4 years ago

    It's impossible to use 100% of the potential of a machine - any developer worth their salt realises that. That's why you never see real-world applications getting anywhere near the theoretical performance of the various platforms.

  • Dezm0nd #12 4 years ago

    Half the power and half the resolution too, apparently. Where'd my 1080p go?

  • Eraser #13 4 years ago

    oh the irony...

    Anyway, judiging by the screenshots, the game doesn't look all that impressive to me to be honest.

  • Widge #14 4 years ago

    certainly more than the screenshots, also should be praised for not containing marines and is not mainly the colour brown
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 12:46

  • agparrot #15 4 years ago

    The sooner they get this potential tapped, the better.

    Everyone sees untapped potential, it isn't something to brag about.

  • alimokrane #16 4 years ago

    Before launch of a game (any platform): We're pushing the console to the max

    After Launch of game : We barely scratched the surface.

    Yes we know that's the case... do we have to hear it every single time ? Shut up and let the game do the talking.
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 12:48

  • Widge #17 4 years ago

    I reckon this thread will go spastic about 5pm

  • Rash' #18 4 years ago

    The "potential" line may have become boring, but Carmack's agreement of that untapped potential certainly gives Sony's claim leverage, so these 1st party devs remarks will continue to fan the "flames" (pun intend).

  • dom6918 #19 4 years ago

    yeah where the hell is the 1080p support...only singstar supports this!!

    my xbox upscales (by the minimum) to 1080p...my ps3 runs at 720p max :(

  • Aretak #20 4 years ago

    I couldn't give two fucks about how much of the PS3's potential is used as long as they continue making games as good as Uncharted.

  • miiiguel #21 4 years ago

    I don't get that "potential" thing. With 4-5 lines of code I can put the portuguese social security servers shitting themselfs (if I wanted to get fired).

  • mcbi4kh2 #22 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    Didnt you post that hilarious line in another thread?

    Nobody laughed at it then either.

  • Goffee #23 4 years ago

    Fails to mention other half bloody hard to access or utilise without going through many hoops

  • andijames #24 4 years ago

    Basically depends on how quick a developer gets to grips with a console. The new libraries like EDGE make accessing this power easier and more simple. These help greatly on consoles such as PS3 which are tougher to code for than the 360.

  • kestral #25 4 years ago

    let the games speak for themselves.

  • MrChuckles #26 4 years ago

    Any developer who doesn't use 100% of the processor is a bad developer. I expect what he means is that they are using the processor at 100% but only at 40% efficiency which sounds like a lot of pretty shit coding if you ask me.

  • peteb #27 4 years ago

    Remember when you were at school and the teacher would tell your parents he "has potential" (but doesn't use it).

    It wasn't a good thing.

  • Binglybob #28 4 years ago

    Just bought the game, thank god for platinum. Game better be as good as people having been raving on about

  • Greebo #29 4 years ago


    I hope they never tap 100%!

    My PC achieves 100% all the time and all it does is stop me being able to do anything! :p

  • lambtron #30 4 years ago

    "I hope they never tap 100%!

    My PC achieves 100% all the time and all it does is stop me being able to do anything! :p "

    Lol - exploiting 100% potential of a machine isn't quite the same as hogging 100% of the CPU 100% of the time - any muppet can do that ;).

  • TheNinkyNonk #31 4 years ago

    Potential: if you don't use it, you don't lose it

  • Ryze #32 4 years ago

    cue Blig_merk, Swam, Banfoi, Apologie circlewank...

  • Zomoniac #33 4 years ago

    Meh. I recall Yamauchi saying GT3 only used 20% of the PS2's power. Fast forward three years, out comes GT4, and aside from more content, it looks and feels exactly the same.

  • Widge #34 4 years ago

    add in the rabid JSPOOLE et al to the circlewank and it gets really sparky

  • bad09 #35 4 years ago

    Question guys as I'm curious (it's slightly related to hyping machines potential)

    PS3 - Teh Cell
    PS2 - Emotion Engine

    What smoke and mirrors did Sony use to hype PS1? Or did everyone just get on with making great games in those days instead of talking about potential for years.

  • JediMasterMalik #36 4 years ago

    Why does it even matter? Uncharted was and is probably one of the best looking console games ever made, the next should continue that trend, hopefully with less tearing. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 13:36

  • Dark_Era #37 4 years ago

    i am getting a bit tired of the whole console war thing and how folks or should i say fan boys are reacting, man all i wanna know is whats going on in the gaming industry
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 13:38

  • Dizzy #38 4 years ago

    "What smoke and mirrors did Sony use to hype PS1? Or did everyone just get on with making great games in those days instead of talking about potential for years. "

    Nothing.. The PS1 was actually a great and well designed machine. They didn't need to invent PR lines.

  • Zomoniac #39 4 years ago

    What smoke and mirrors did Sony use to hype PS1?

    In those days PlayStation as a brand wasn't enough on its own to sell units, it actually had to be worth buying. The PS1 was a genuinely great machine, and it was only through that that they came to be in a position where their complacency didn't matter.

  • Weezer #40 4 years ago

    The most fun I've had recently was with Pixeljunk Monsters. I'm pretty sure that uses about 1% of the PS3's power.

    Maybe 2%.

  • ThePissartist #41 4 years ago

    My nipples are larger, have a greater circumference, are considerably straighter than any other nipple. They're also 2x more pimply than any super-nipple in existance today and have the potential to grow upon request (at a later unspecified date).
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 14:05

  • Mr_Dodger #42 4 years ago

    Naughty Dog (Sony 1st party) talking up the PS3.
    Yesterday Rare (MS 1st party) talking up the 360.

    Just the way it is.

  • Doctor_What #43 4 years ago

    I've jumped straight from a CRT to a Sony Bravia and I've not seen 'tearing' on any machine. What is it? And why am I missing this thing that seems to blight the games-playing lives of everyone else? Is it ridiculously minor so I'm just ignoring it or not noticing it, or have I been really lucky with my choices of displays?

  • Zomoniac #44 4 years ago

    @ DoctorWhat:

    It's not the display, it's certain games. If you've played MotoGP 06 on 360 and not noticed it, then I won't tell you what it is as once you know then it will annoy you for all eternity. On this matter, ignorance is bliss.

  • bad09 #45 4 years ago

    @ Dizzy and Zomoniac

    I thought they didn't need to hype "potential" with PS1 just wanted to check!

  • JediMasterMalik #46 4 years ago

    Why should they need to hype potential at all, it should be obvious to anyone who's lived through a previous generation of consoles.

  • rudedudejude #47 4 years ago

    Come on Emotion Engine give me some EMOTIONS!

  • Darren #48 4 years ago

    If Uncharted only used half the PS3's processing power, couldn't Naughty Dog have used the remainder to get rid of the horrid screen tearing that is about the only major gripe I have with this terrific game?

  • JediMasterMalik #49 4 years ago

    I think the idea was that since they only had a relatively short amount of time with the hardware, they didn't know the best ways to access all of the power. It's not like developers have a dial to turn up and down when developing a game to decide how much power to use is it?

  • Doctor_What #50 4 years ago

    @ Zomoniac: Thanks for the reply.

    I've played other titles where people seem to complain about screen tearing, but not that one. Either I'm going blind (too much time on SSHD will do that to you) or it might not be such an issue for someone who grew up with colour attribute clash on the ZX Spectrum!

  • space_ace #51 4 years ago

    a hearty, half-powerful lol

  • Darren #52 4 years ago

    Doctor_What - Screen tearing happens in games that have it regardless of whether you see it or not, it's very much dependent on your tolerance to such issues and viewing distance. Some people just don't see it (or dismiss it as a trivial glitch) and others, like me sadly, can spot it straight away even if it's only minor and be annoyed by it!

    Thankfully the better developers strive to keep it to an absolute minimum so monstrosities like Saints Row (pre-patch), Heavenly Sword and Splinter Cell: Double Agent which tore all the freakin' time should become a thing of the past (the recent Alone in the Dark being a sorry exception). Uncharted has some nasty screen tearing from time to time but I found it bearable if not forgiveable, mainly because the game itself is otherwise excellent. I've no doubt that the sequel will be much improved in this area now that developers are becoming more familiar with the PS3's hardware. That said, I much prefer Insomniac's attitude to coding games as they admitted in a recent EG interview that they're technical perfections so tearing not likely to ever be a problem in any of their games. In fact, I still think that Ratchet & Clank ToD is one of the most polished and visually pleasing games on any current gen console so hopes are high for Resistance 2 and R&C Quest for Booty.

  • mingster #53 4 years ago

    Unfortunately i think you'll find using extra CPU processor power will not remove screan tearing as it is a graphics processor problem. You need more GPU memory to buffer the video display to to help reduce the tearing. This is a graphics card problem.

  • Darren #54 4 years ago

    @mingster - Yes but by offloading work from the GPU to the SPUs then you could feasibly reduce tearing because the GPU then has more processing power for doing whatever else it has to do. The article does mention this: "And part of the skill of developing for the PlayStation 3 is getting the GPU to farm jobs out to the six SPUs..." ;)

    Also optimising the game engine can reduce the problem too... look at the differences between MotoGP 06 and MotoGP 07 for example, the latter of which is 100% tear free. Also the recent UT III on the 360 uses a later build of the UE3 than Gears of War and shows much less screen tearing.

  • oreillymj #55 4 years ago

    Sony have some top people working on getting the most out of the CELL's SPU's. When I finished Uncharted, I spotted the name of RJ Mical amongst the huge list of names in the credits. This guy is familiar to anyone who had an Amiga.
    Sure enough, it's the same guy. According to his web-site http://www.mical.org/ , he's doing "top secret stuff for Sony"

    This guy eats, sleeps & drinks assembler and has been doing multi-threaded OS development for years.

  • themorganator #56 4 years ago

    I wonder how all the people who bought the console at launch feel about this "potential"

    I guess that's why PS3 fanboys are so adamant they've backed the right horse - the long game. What a joke.

    360 owners have had years of superior looking titles and the best response sony developers can come up with is.... "it's coming"

    lol

  • Darren #57 4 years ago

    @Zero Cool - You made some good points there about how Microsoft forced the current gen on us perhaps a bit early but then you oddly go onto say that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are dated compared with a current PC! ;)

    The truth is that console technolgy is static for the best part of five years so obviously PC tech is going to surpass them sooner rather than later. Back in early 2005, a console like the Xbox 360 with 512 MB of memory and a forward-thinking ATI GPU was better than most PCs of that time but as we now know the majority of games have issues running at 1280x720 nevermind 1920x1080. Most PCs have been able to run games at 1280x1024 (higher resolution than 720p) for the best part of a decade! LOL

  • ThePissartist #58 4 years ago

    lol@Zero_Cool

    But what games can you play on it?? 360 ports (that don't run as well) and piss poor adventure games.

  • JDub #59 4 years ago

    To be fair, it seems that it takes a couple of years after a consoles release before the manufacturers/developers release optimised analysis tools to see bottleneck, performance snapshots, etc. The PS2 did the same and as already mentioned, had some amazing games using power not even realised in the first 2-3 years. Whether the potential gets tapped, or whatever, but it can only be a good thing, eh? :)

    Uncharted 2? Bring it on...

  • mingster #60 4 years ago

    @ darren... its graphics MEMORY thats the issue not spare processor cycles. The PS3 needs more graphics memory. By optimizing your graphics ie: reducing texture sizes or hiding and removing unused vertices in polygons thereby making the amount of graphics memory needed less it in turn reduces screen tearing. If you had more graphics memory it would not be an issue.

  • mcbi4kh2 #61 4 years ago

    This generation for me personally has been a disappointment, it simply came too quick as there was still life in last gen consoles i.e. the original Xbox and the PS2 (as sales and games still show).

    I blame MS for putting out the 360 in a hurry to gain market share away from Sony (which didn't work), in turn it forced Nintendo and Sony to get there systems out as quickly as they could.


    +1

  • Widge #62 4 years ago

    themorganator has ruined my 5pm "moron prediction"

    damn them

  • mcbi4kh2 #63 4 years ago

    Then Thepissartist stormed in and made doubley sure your prediction was wrong.

  • peterfll #64 4 years ago

    I agree with the meh sentiments already expressed, but only reply to those who question the quality of Uncharted. It does have some technical issues, and it doesn't revolutionise any gameplay mechanics. But it is a bloody good game and looks stunning at times.

    ps However, allow me one strong opinion: you can stick the PC as a viable alternative to console gaming. Geforce 8800 yawnathon whatevernogames.

  • andywilkie35 #65 4 years ago

    lets just hope that they start using it properly then because i thought Unchartered looked a bit bollocks graphically and is one of the reasons i didn't bother buying it
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 15:17

  • mcbi4kh2 #66 4 years ago

    ps However, allow me one strong opinion: you can stick the PC as a viable alternative to console gaming. Geforce 8800 yawnathon whatevernogames.

    I do agree that the PC probably isn't an alternative to consoles. I dont agree with 'whatevernogames', you're just showing your ignorance there really.

  • Widge #67 4 years ago

    I completely missed Thepissartist's post... I was too much in awe of themorganator's clearly superior games

  • peterfll #68 4 years ago

    @zero

    The PS2 was also a dog to work with. It didn't stop Sony making the same (mistakes?) with the PS3. But we should add, it didn't stop developers eventually exploiting the PS2.

    As for the PC stuff, sorry I can't go there with you. A console vs PC match on graphical specs alone is not a fair one. You have to the full package, the price, the games, the peripherals, the online service etc, the ease of use etc. To say console manufacturers have mugged all us console owners off is a little inflamatory. I'm very happy with my consoles, thank you very much. In the meantime my other half has just binned the £2k+ 3 year old PC for a new one because it was getting tired and was no longer meeting spec.

    Perhaps horses for courses?

  • peterfll #69 4 years ago

    I was being lazy. The PC has games, just none that get my juices running.

  • ThePissartist #70 4 years ago

    mcbi4kh2

    This generation is creating the largest profit out of any generation prior to it, month by month sales are up. It appears that innovation is pushing sales across all major formats (PS3/Wii/360). All of which are selling like hotcakes (software and hardware).

    The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today. As with your hairstyle; the PC is firmly stuck in the 90s.

  • ThePissartist #71 4 years ago

    Zero_Cool - sort out your punctuation and I may start taking you seriously.

  • mcbi4kh2 #72 4 years ago

    In the meantime my other half has just binned the £2k+ 3 year old PC for a new one because it was getting tired and was no longer meeting spec.

    Binned a 2k PC? Are you exagerating, if you're not you had your pants pulled down?

    A 2k PC 3 years ago would probably have a 7800gt and p4 prescott? Would easily run Crysis well.

  • peterfll #73 4 years ago

    @k109

    Thanks for that insight. Perhaps you can use this talent and post this weekends lottery numbers for us all too?

    @zero

    Are you baiting for a AAA console exclusive list of games vs AAA PC exclusive are you?

  • Yaz #74 4 years ago

    Zero_cool wrote: "I blame MS for putting out the 360 in a hurry to gain market share away from Sony (which didn't work)"

    Actually it did. Both Microsoft and Nintendo have a significantly better share of the market this gen than they had last gen.

    "in turn it forced Nintendo and Sony to get there systems out as quickly as they could."

    That's just not true my friend.

    Sony and Nintendo had their own plans for their consoles, plans which had nothing to do with MS. Someone had to be first, and in this case it was MS, but both Sony and Nintendo launched when THEY were ready, neither were forced to launch their console before it's time.

    Zero_cool also wrote: "As for the PS3's power, IMO it's not any better than the 360. The two are that tied together it's difficult to differentiate between them....On the other hand, the PS3 is just a cunt to work with. It's funny because when the PSone was released, developers were praising the system for it's easy to develop for."

    On that, I do agree. :)

    Although we can't guarantee that Sony will learn from their mistakes with the PS3 for the PS4 (as peterfil pointed out in his reply already).
    Edited by 2 at 06/08/08 @ 17:52

  • mcbi4kh2 #75 4 years ago


    The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today. As with your hairstyle; the PC is firmly stuck in the 90s.

    Looks around the room *how does he know about my hair*.

    I said:
    PC probably isn't an alternative to consoles

    But it does have a lot of excellent games. Whats your point?

  • peterfll #76 4 years ago

    @mcbi4kh2

    Sorry, it's not been........ binned exactly. It's going into the living room for "web browsing". But yeah, apparently it didn't cut it no more. I expect you're right, it would run Crysis. It's got that SLI dual card architecture thing. I will tell you this; it's got terrible terrible Windows rot. We've reinstalled Windows a couple of times and after a few weeks it didn't seem to make much difference.

    Anyway, my other half is a WoW addict. I'm a WoW widow. We've very split on our preferred platforms, but harmonious in most other things.

  • asphaltcowboy #77 4 years ago

    @Bloodkult: That is amazing! :D

  • mcbi4kh2 #78 4 years ago

    @peterfll

    This will cure your windows rot:

    http://www.wowwiki. com/Linux/Wine

  • kangarootoo #79 4 years ago

    "Absolutely, PC's have been running higher resolutions than consoles for years. For Microsoft and Sony to call the PS3/360 next gen is a bit of an insult to a PC gamer (in fact, all gamers in general)."

    /sigh

    In what way is it an insult to anyone? Seriously, what is insulting about calling this generation of consoles next gen, given that it is the next generation after the previous one. Who would find that insulting except for the most thin skinned and paranoid of gamers?

  • peterfll #80 4 years ago

    LinixNOOOO!

    ;)

  • 7creature #81 4 years ago

    mingster: Well, graphic memory is harsh mistress :-P I think this is where a lot of optimization can really improve things.

    If you are interested (though in that case you probably already know about all the current hw) search some benchmarks/tests concerning latest ATi 512 MB GPUs running texture-memory hungry games (Oblivion with Quarl texture mod for example - using up to 768 MB of textures) - they are running perfectly fine, even though the card has only 512 MB of memory. Seems that those stories that ATi heavily optimized memory management were not just plain PRs... In other words, optimization > raw memory (if you have reached the necessary minimum breakpoint of course).
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 15:53

  • ThePissartist #82 4 years ago

    Zero_Cool - punctuation and grammer are two different things.

    mcbi4kh2 - least you're able to take a joke. I'm sorry though, I seriously don't feel that the PC is relevant at the moment (this is cemented by the fact John Carmack is concentrating on consoles for id's next engine). I'm a former PC gamer/builder, turned console gamer.

  • mcbi4kh2 #83 4 years ago

    @Thepissartist

    I, like you, used to be a PC gamer. As soon as I finished uni and got a job as a programmer the last thing I want to do when I get home is sit at a PC. Otherwise I would still be playing.

    I dont know whow you can say that the PC is currently irelevant though.

    Currently there are 10 million subscribers to WoW.
    On average there are about 800,000 - 1,000,000 different people signed into steam at any given time.

    Also PC's are, have always and will always be the best place to play a FPS.

    They just appeal to different markets, which is what I meant when I said they're not really an alternative to consoles.

  • JediMasterMalik #84 4 years ago

    More like PissHead lolamiright!

  • ThePissartist #85 4 years ago

    Dude, the whole industry can't hang on one game.

    I agree PCs/consoles appeal to different markets, it's just consoles really do make up for about 90% of that market. I think it's a saddening fact that the PC is going for low power internet based games, but I totally see why it's happening (who has the inclination to spend £300 on a GPU?).

    We'll see how things progress in the next decade, but I'm fairly sure that innovation will come before ghz. That's why I'm a console gamer (I've also enjoyed more games this generation than any before it).

  • PearOfAnguish #86 4 years ago

    "The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today."

    Yeah, there are only millions of WoW subscribers and millions of people playing other MMO games generating hundreds of millions every year from subs alone. And there's only millions of Steam users. And never mind that the sales figures so often touted as evidence of the demise of PC gaming ignore download sales and MMO subs, and also discount sales from smaller retailers. PC games clearly make no money at all!

    "(who has the inclination to spend £300 on a GPU?)."

    And there it is, the old 'you need a £300 graphics card to play PC games'. Your opinion is not even worth considering.
    Edited by 2 at 06/08/08 @ 16:27

  • mcbi4kh2 #87 4 years ago

    Dude, the whole industry can't hang on one game.

    Never said it did, that was just an example.

    Anyway, home time. I might give a longer answer tomorrow.

  • patchbox360 #88 4 years ago

    fuk PC, im not waiting a year to play Gears of War 2, no fuking way

  • StooMonster #89 4 years ago

    Is there a potentiometer to measure unused "potential" in consoles?

    If there's under-utilised or under-used or not-quite-there-yet potential in one platform, isn't it equally true of all of them at this stage in their life-cycles?

  • IronCladChicken #90 4 years ago

    "The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today. As with your hairstyle; the PC is firmly stuck in the 90s."

    According to EA (Well, according to Eurogamers quote), PC games sales are much, much higher than XBox360 and Wii games sales.
    Which, by your argument, makes the 360 pretty much redundant? :p

  • des #91 4 years ago

    2006 repeating itself for Sony developers,Kutaragi was right PS3 is 4D machine...

  • penhalion #92 4 years ago

    And part of the skill of developing for the PlayStation 3 is getting the GPU to farm jobs out to the six SPUs - seeing which SPUs are idling and can take up some of the slack in a frame-to-frame kind of way,"

    Yawn. This has been the mythical goal since the PS3 came out. The problem is that this approach leads to unknown performance as you can't guarantee if an SPU will be available when needed and if not, things need to stall while waiting or quality needs to be lowered as operations are missed.

    These are basically statements made by a designer who doesn't actually understand the architecture well enough to realise the statements are nonsense.

  • IronGiant #93 4 years ago

    When you have a chance to talk to someone at NG surely you can shoehorn in the question.. "What are you guys working on now?"

    Uncharted is fantastic but what's coming next, is it Uncharted2 or a Jak and Daxter game maybe...

  • SwedBear #94 4 years ago

    PearOfAnguish . i would say a HD4850 range of card is the minimum today for the PC before you have to start turning down details etc. And you are correct that that sits at around £120. But you also need a good CPU as more and more games tend to become CPU-bound as you go up in resolution/details. That's at least another £115-120 (Q6600 or E8400). and then its memory, motherboard, PSU, good hard drive, the OS etc. It mounts up. It's true that saying you need a £300 video card to play todays games is wrong but you cannot pretend that PC's are cheap either.

    You also have to think about how long you want the card to last. A HD4850 today will last for about 1 year before it will struggle with newer games and you will have to turn the details etc. down. But that's also the PC's strenght. Even if your hardware is getting old you can usually play newer games, you just have to turn down the details a bit or turn off AA/AF or turn down the resolution. And not all new games are pushing the system to the limit.

    I review hardware so I have great systems includding the latest video cards and regularly benchmark these system against both older and newer games. To say that a 3 year old video card like the 7950 can handle Crysis fine is just a joke. If anything that game, even with the newest cards, needs to be reduced in detail and resolution to play it at a satisfactory speed. Medium without any AA/AF usually is fine. It looks great but got quite a lot of popup.

    So the PC has some nice strenghs there even though it also cost more and you have to keep it current with drivers, reinstallation of Windows from time to time etc.

    Consoles have their strenghs to. While I cannot be certain my older rigs (including my relatively new Mac Book Pro) run certain games i always know that the game I buy for the PS3 or the 360 (or even my Wii) will work exactly as it will work for everyone else. An example, when the MMORG Conan comes out for the 360 I will buy it for the 360 since I have big issues getting it to run well on my GeForce Go 8600 that sits in my Mac Book pro. I have to turn the details down a ton and still it's slieshow a lot of the times. On the other hand one of my main systems can run it better than the 360 will do as they ahve much beter hardware - but that hardware does cost more money.

    So, as a long long time computer/PC gamer I've almost exclusively moved to gaming on the consoles when possible as it simply, for me personally, is more hasslefree while still giving me a great experience. But that does not mean the PC is dooooomed. It's jsut a personal preference.

    I'ts pretty interesting visiting different countries and see how games are sold. Here in Sweden the console shelfs are huge and the PC-section in most stores are now much much smaller. The times I've visited the US the last few years I've seen stores that no longer even stock PC-games, and if they do only old ones. In Germany on the other hand the PC-shelfs are much bigger while the console-shelfs are smaller. So I guess its hard to say "PC gaming is dying or PC gaming is not dying" globally as there is lots of different markets.

    As for the topic for the article. Of course no game is tapping the full potential of a console (or gaming-rig). There is always optimizations that can be done, new techniques that are created etc. which will make the "next" game often better than the previous one. While U ncharted was a great game I must personally say it wasn't THAT good. Graphics were great but nothing spectacular, gameplay was good but nothin spectacular. It was a great game and I expect them to tap even more on the next game from the PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/08 @ 18:25

  • SwedBear #95 4 years ago

    "According to EA (Well, according to Eurogamers quote), PC games sales are much, much higher than XBox360 and Wii games sales. Which, by your argument, makes the 360 pretty much redundant? :p "

    Isn't EA the publisher for the Sims? I wonder how much money they get from that one .... heck, the IKEA furnitures for Sims2 took top spot in many countries :). Talk about gold mine .....

    Seriously though i would expect EA to get much money from the PC as they publish several high-profile PC-games (Crysis and The Sims comes to mind). They should keep doing well with games like Spore.

    /B

  • Kryon #96 4 years ago

    "Uncharted used less than half PS3's power "

    LOL, Fuck off. That is all.

  • ccfb #97 4 years ago

    Odd they couldn't fix the awful tearing, then.

  • PearOfAnguish #98 4 years ago

    Yes Swedbear, I review hardware too so I'm fully aware of the cost and life expectancy of PC components. The major difference with a PC, though, is that it has other uses, few of us have a system that's purely for gaming. That's an important factor for developers to take into consideration; so long as they don't have a title with completely outlandish requirements they've got a potential market that dwarfs any console. This is great for casual devs and download services. And even when there is a game with high requirements and apparent niche appeal it can still perform well - Crysis sold upwards of 1.5m copies worldwide despite EA and Crytek's whining about piracy.

    Fact is, PC games sales account for a healthy percentage of the overall market, but the problem is there's no PC PR rep to stand up for it when we're subjected to an annual 'PC gaming is dead' sales report (which inevitably focuses on the US market and ignores downloads, casual games, MMO subs and the huge European audience).

    And you really don't need the latest hardware to play new games so long as you don't demand they be run at the highest settings. Friend of mine has an FX-55, 2GB RAM and some ancient NVIDIA card (I think it might even be a Ti4600) and he's recently played through Crysis, Bioshock and CoD4 without any complaints.
    Edited by 2 at 06/08/08 @ 23:09

  • MilkYMoO #99 4 years ago

    Psm magazine said, uncharted looked and played better on a standard def tv.

  • SeesThroughAll #100 4 years ago

    @ penhalion:

    And yet, it seems KZ2 manages to do it.

  • David_Snakes #101 4 years ago

    A little less conversation, a little more action please
    All this aggravation aint satisfactioning me
    A little more bite and a little less bark
    A little less fight and a little more spark
    Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me
    Satisfy me baby

  • ThePissartist #102 4 years ago

    [link url=http://ww w.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939
    ]http://ww w.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50...[/link]

    "Data from the sales-tracking firm NPD reveals that retailers sold 267.8 million games in 2007, 36.4 million of which were PC titles. Console games brought in $6.6 billion, selling 153.9 million units total, while portable software hauled a record $2 billion in revenue with 77.5 million units sold."

    You can't argue with the numbers... The portables are selling greater than 5x the amount of games that the PC is. EA may be making more money from PC, but that's from a select few games.

    I agree that the PC market has MASSIVE potential, just not with the games that are being developed today. Didn't Crysis sell well becasue it was given away with some select GPUs?

    *still plays C&C on PC - seriously can't be expected to do that on a pad*

  • mcbi4kh2 #103 4 years ago

    You can't argue with the numbers...

    I can, and I'm going to :)

    Firstly NPD = USA, which does not reflect the market as a whole.

    Secondly Im betting that that only covers physical sales bought from a shop.
    I download virtually all of my PC games through Steam and other services.

    Thirdly it also doesnt take into account monthly subscriptions for MMORPGs.

    Didn't Crysis sell well becasue it was given away with some select GPUs?

    No, Crysis did well becasue it was a bloody good game.

    Also Counter Stirke is still the most popular online FPS currently out on any platform (I think) averaging at about 150,000 users at any give time. Phenomonal.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/08 @ 09:46

  • PearOfAnguish #104 4 years ago

    I knew you'd mention the NPD report.
    NPD track US sales only and don't include downloads or MMO subs. Their figures are largely irrelevant.

  • ThePissartist #105 4 years ago

    Ha! Read the article, it totally includes WoW (most of the PC games market is from WoW).

    I'm sorry guys, you can continue to argue your point (and I'm sure you will), BUT the PC games market is without a doubt in decline (not dead!) - check NVIDIA's stocks for the past five years. Look at the latest PC reviews on Eurogamer (many review in one article - just like they do for the DS), check the NPD data (or the European equivalent).

    PC gaming is changing as a result - look at id next PC game, it's Quake 3 running within IE! It'll work for everyone!! Crysis on the other hand doesn't!!! I have a laptop with a 7900 and Crysis looks utter shite (I downloaded the demo FYI).

    I'm really looking forward to Quake Live actually (it's the way forward), it means I can get a few mins of multiplayer without much hassle while the missus feeds the baby...

    It may piss off you guys that just went out to but a 8X00 for you PC, but why the hell are you writing comments on a thread that's about the PS3?? To wave your virtual cock at people? 'My cock is much bigger than yours, only I can't use it'.

  • mcbi4kh2 #106 4 years ago

    @ThePissartist

    You bought the most graphically intense game ever made and are surprised it looks shit on a laptop? I have nothing to say to that.

    You can try and twist the facts all you like, there are far more active PC users playing games online than ANY platform. Just look at the numbers for CS, WOW, BF, BF2142 etc.

    P.s. We're on the 9 series now


    What has a 'virtual-cock' got to do with anything? I thought we were having a discussion.

    I thought you were a moron with your first comment, it turns out I was right. Thus I no longer have the inclination to argue with you.

    'Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

  • bioreit #107 4 years ago

    I'm surprised it used as much as 30-40% - I would have thought 30% max, simply because it was so early in the console's life cycle. I remember when all the PS3 fanboys were saying "yeah, Gears of War does look nice, but it's short and it's clearly already maxed out both the capacity of DVD and the power of the 360 - Microsoft's failbox has plateaud already." Gears of War 2 puts paid to those comments.

    People seem woefully ignorant of console history and console fact - consoles are a fixed system, so no, you cannot upgrade parts when it gets a bit old, nor can you turn settings down to make the game run a bit better. You're stuck with whatever game the devs give you. However, by virtue of being a closed system, good (even mediocre) devs can squeeze far more power from a console than they ever could from a PC with better on-paper specs. Why should devs waste their time trying to optimise and eke out every last bit of power from a Radeon HD3850, when a) only a small percentage of their customers would have that card, b) there are at least a dozen different variations of the card anyway and c) users can either adjust settings in the menu or upgrade? It's no surprise that some of the best looking and impressive games for a console appear towards the end of its designated life - the devs have finally worked out all the little tricks and know all the optimisations they can realistically pull off.

    Yes, console owners often have to put up with a new game that does not look as good as it does on a top of the range PC (Far Cry 2 case in point - console versions are placed at the mid-high PC level), but they don't have any of the worry and stresses. And will also get a far better looking and smoother running game than the vast majority of PC owners.

  • bioreit #108 4 years ago

    @ ThePissartist

    Yes, it includes WoW, in terms of retail units sold, but it does *not* include the subscriptions it makes. Makes an absolutely monumental difference, seeing as that's 10 MILLION subscribers paying monthly fees.

    Something which neither that article nor yourself take into account.

  • ThePissartist #109 4 years ago

    I'm sorry, but none of you have given any real jusification to your argument.

    Put your head into the sand and keep telling yourself that 2, 5, and 10 year old games make money for a platform that's undergoing serious change. Try to convince yourself it might not happen because someone from EA's PR department told you not to worry.

    This has been a fun thread - cheers for the conversation, despite your obvious frustration with me, I have no problems with you. :)

  • mcbi4kh2 #110 4 years ago

    10 MILLION subscribers paying monthly fees.

    (cheapest is $12.99 p/month)

    Then you:

    Put your head into the sand and keep telling yourself that 2, 5, and 10 year old games make money for a platform that's undergoing serious change.

    Im going to repeat my quote:

    'Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

  • ThePissartist #111 4 years ago

    Xbox Live?

  • PearOfAnguish #112 4 years ago

    You tried to use flawed sales figures to prove your point, and it's us that's not provided any justification?
    The PC market is changing, that's all. It's still making plenty of money and holds a significant market share, but none of the current data we have is relevant as it doesn't take into account revenue from downloads, subscriptions and casual gaming. And yes, 5 year old games are well worth taking into consideration when those titles are generating millions for the developers. You can ignore that if you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

    By refusing to accept that your poorly-informed arguments and conclusions are incorrect, you are the only person who appears to have their head in the sand.

    Xbox Live?

    Yeah, what about it? This isn't a console vs PC argument. We know consoles are popular and make lots of cash, nobody is disputing that.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/08 @ 11:47

  • bioreit #113 4 years ago

    Apparently, ThePissartist believes that an extra $1.6 billion on the side of PC gaming, provided just by WoW subs is irrelevant. Never mind the fact that it more than doubles the number his precious linked-to article states PC games garner, nor that it still doesn't take into account paid-for downloads, nor that PC games are always much cheaper than their console counterparts.

    But maybe that's because we are sticking our heads in the sand, eh?

    Yes. That must be it.

    Edit: My typist has been sacked for being fat-fingered. Trained monkeys is such a misnomer.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/08 @ 11:55

  • ThePissartist #114 4 years ago

    Call of Duty 4 sales of 2007 (yes, I understand it's for USA):

    PC version: 383,000
    Xbox 360 version: 3.04 million
    PS3 version: 'over 2 million'

    Halo 3 sold 8.1 million units in 2007, that's greater than all of the top 10 PC game combined and it was released in October!!!

    Show me your numbers!! Also, it might be worth checking out XBL's film and game sales.

    Nuff said.

  • ThePissartist #115 4 years ago

    Ps. all you've done is prove that Blizzard are very, VERY rich! :)

  • FrankCannon #116 4 years ago

    Does the P$3 inform you if one or more of the 'Cells' is defective with a red ring or does it just pretend everything is ok?

  • mcbi4kh2 #117 4 years ago

    This is the last I am going to say in this thread becasue you seem a tad dim and its getting on my nerves.

    Show me your numbers!!!

    err, did you even read our posts!?

    I dont know how many times we have got to say this for it to sink in, Im trying one last time.

    Those sales figures count the store bought retail versions, not the ones bought from digital downloads!

  • PearOfAnguish #118 4 years ago

    Thought we'd been through this? There are no PC sales figures worth considering until someone actually takes into account all the possible revenue streams. You seem to be on some kind of pro-console crusade but nobody is trying to claim that the PC makes more money than consoles, simply pointing out that there is still plenty of life in the PC as a gaming platform, but that the market is changing. If a game like Crysis can sell over 1.5m (and let's not forget this doesn't include the download sales numbers) despite the rampant piracy and idiots claiming you need a £5k system to run it, or Gothic 3 can do 500k in retail worldwide in spite of it being a broken niche RPG, then I reckon it is in pretty good health.

    Ps. all you've done is prove that Blizzard are very, VERY rich! :)

    Totally irrelevant. EA is very, very rich too, does that mean we should ignore all the money from EA sports and The Sims? That'd be a fair old chunk. Are you being deliberately stupid, or does it come naturally?
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/08 @ 13:09

  • ThePissartist #119 4 years ago

    Ignorance, for you people, really IS bliss. ;)

  • BobsUncle #120 4 years ago

    less than half the PS3's power you say? That explains why it's shit then.

  • actionfitz #121 4 years ago

    "Ryze
    06-Aug-08 13:23:28

    cue Blig_merk, Swam, Banfoi, Apologie circlewank... "

    lol 'Watch out! Merk's about!'
    cue annoying Beadle music...


    hardly matters tbh, for those companies who actually want to make money,
    its a rare studio that can afford independent development cycles for each platform...
    most likely it'll be another case of 'lowest common denominator' development.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/08 @ 18:12