The Very Convenient Un-truth: The PS3 is Difficult to Develop for
"We actually announced a PS3 version early on but that was when we were still doing a lot of technical exploration of the architecture. PS3 is a very powerful system but as you guys know it's very exotic and tough to develop for and our engine really at the time wasn't designed for PS3." - Videogamer.comFirst, this is EA. I don't think any single publisher has put out as many PS3 games as EA. It hardly seems like an "exotic" system to program for when you've already released multiple Maddens, several shooters, and a bevy of other titles for the system.
The reality is that tech companies love to make marketing decisions look like technical ones. Take the infamous "rumble is incompatible with tilt-sensing" line we got from Sony before the release of the DualShock 3 for example. Blaming the technology is a way to garner sympathy from consumers for decisions they may not like. In reality, game companies, nay I should say tech companies given all the lies about the iPhone, would rather not spend the money, but that's hardly palatable. Imagine if EA came out and said:
We actually announced a PS3 version early on but that was when we thought this franchise and the PS3 were both going to be hotter than they are. PS3 is a very powerful system but as you guys know there simply aren't enough out there, and porting this game to the PS3 would simply cost WAY too much money. We simply don't want to risk it. Please don't tell Sony or our consumers, if the PS3 becomes a hit we don't want to look like we haven't supported the system.I've spoken to computer science professors and programmers working in gaming. Yes, the PS3 is different in it's architecture but it is no more difficult to program for. All three consoles are different, so what qualifies as "exotic?"
Don't buy the lie anymore. There are enough PS3 games out there to prove that this is not some labyrinthine system that's impossible to program for. Heck, if Penny-Arcade can bring their game over to the PS3, I imagine EA might be able to pull it off.
So how about it, can we drop the "PS3 is too confusing" lie and just state what we all know? Your bean-counters said you wouldn't make enough money off of this game and your PR folks said EA can't be seen "not supporting" the PS3. So you went for an old lie that needs to be put out to pasture. Lame.
Comments
I am a programmer and I can confirm it is indeed extremely difficult to code for PS3. Why? Because CELL forces developers to manually manage memory; something general application programmers haven’t been doing for over 15 years now and brings back the memory of DOS assembly programming days. Secondly, CELL sucks at running brand-heavy code like strategy games, game logic, and AI. CELL was meant to be a streaming processor processing video/audio data and not random access data processing code, for which CELL is just horrible and is roughly equivalent to a 800 Mhz Pentium III. Finally, PS3’s GPU was obsolete before launch and is 1/4th as powerful as Xbox 360’s GPU, which makes programmer’s life miserable.
In summary, PS3 is a world-class Blu-Ray player that happens to play games as a side-job, which it isn’t even good at.
Deadmeat, I would like some concrete evidence that you are a programmer and you indeed have worked with the PS3’s architecture.
Otherwise, you are just a whining 360 fanboy who has entirely too much time availiable because your 360 crapped out on you.
haha deadmeat u got owned. stop whining.
its a programmers job to program for a console.
just coz its hard doesnt mean u quit. look at mgs4, killzone 2, gran turismo. fu** u dont kno jacksh**! bloody fanboy, let me guess, ur s***box rrod on u?
@Deadmeat. I am also a programmer. What the f* does application programming have to do with programming consoles? Programming consoles is all about low level programming of the chip, if you are using features like automatic memory management to program console games then your game will be crap. Some developers say it’s easy, some say it’s hard to develop for the cell. The difference is in the skill of the programmer, good programmers enjoy the challenge of a new architetcture, bad programmers whinge and complain and want people to build tools for them instead of making them. It works in cycles, at some points in time programming is easy and lots of people do it and then at others it is difficult. For example, CoBOL made it easy, OO made it hard, OO eventually made it easy again, now multi-core is making it difficult again. If you are clever you won’t have any problem with programming any turing complete processor, if you are not maybe you should be a lumberjack.
@Gazpacho
> I am also a programmer.
Then you must hate PS3 with a passion.
> What the f* does application programming have to do with programming consoles?
Game is an application.
> Programming consoles is all about low level programming of the chip
Not any more. Those times passed 8 years ago and all game development has been high-level since Xbox and GameCube days. Low-level programming is no longer economically viable in the age of multiplatform titles and expensive development.
> if you are using features like automatic memory management to program console games then your game will be crap.
Developers already moved to automatic memory management and left PS2 and PS3 behind.
> Some developers say it’s easy, some say it’s hard to develop for the cell.
People who complain about PS3 development difficulties are John Carmack, Mark Rein, Gabe Newell, and Jason Booth(Guitar Hero 1&2 and Rock Band)
> The difference is in the skill of the programmer
Developers prefer to use their skill to accelerate development, not fight the hardware.
> bad programmers whinge and complain and want people to build tools for them instead of making them.
Who happens to make up 99% of programmer population.
> If you are clever you won’t have any problem with programming any turing complete processor, if you are not maybe you should be a lumberjack.
I am skeptical of your claim that you are a professional hardware. Professional programming is all about schedule, budget, and deadline. Having a difficult programming environment like PS3 will only get you a project cancellation.
Very interesting commenting from your readers. The main article sucked, with an obvious PS3 bias. Lame.
I am a video game console developer, first and foremost. Deadmeat, your biggest concern is the fact that you have to manage memory? And you’re talking about video games? You’ve obviously never experienced the joys of working on the Gameboy Advanced’s Arm processors. That combined with juggling pointers to data is enough to bring spoiled Windows programmers to their knees. How cold you even consider memory management in a discussion about real CONSOLE development?
Do yourself a favor and actually read some Cell B.E. info from IBM before you start spouting off false information. Claiming that it is equivalent to a Pentium III is just asinine. The most likely cause for poor performance in practice with the Cell is the fact that too much workload is placed on the PPU rather than being deferred to the SPUs as multithreading in console video game development is relatively new.
I’m sick and tired of all the coders, (and people who cannot code to save their lives), out there who believe that to call one-self a ‘serious programmer’ means that one has to be border-line masochistic. The historical rise of technology in the earth happened because of people who realized that the existing tools were good but at best rudimentary and came up with a solution that was ‘easier’ or more productive to deal with; using said tools. If a specific solution can be done in half the time it takes, and produce the same results, as fighting with code that is more generic, even the most ‘clever’ programmer WILL choose that route. Regardless of Deadmeat’s ‘apparent’ bias your own biases make you ALL miss the point entirely! The architecture of some systems was designed for toolmakers, to be passed on to tool users, while others were designed for tool users from the ground up. There is nothing ‘wrong’ or ‘crappy’ about work produced by either. It’s all a matter of what you want out of your tools.