[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

I knew it all along. This is the sacrifice you make when you enforce backwards-compatible hardware. Every time Sony takes a step forward, they take three steps back.

Now I'll have to deal with jagged ass planes in Ace Combat 06: Free Erusea. Why even have missiles. I'll just scrape my X-02 against other Aces.

SkyEye: Aliasing on the target. Confirmed.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Megalith

I knew it all along. This is the sacrifice you make when you enforce backwards-compatible hardware. Every time Sony takes a step forward, they take three steps back.

Now I'll have to deal with jagged ass planes in Ace Combat 06: Free Erusea. Why even have missiles. I'll just scrape my X-02 against other Aces.

SkyEye: Aliasing on the target. Confirmed.

You uh, didn't read the post? Even in PC games, this is a relevant and obvious issue; it just isn't as appearant because PC games are displayed at a higher resolution. Taking a single screen of a console game will have the same "jaggies" no matter what kind of AA hardware is in place, it is when the actual image is being projected on the screen, when the AA is able to take into effect and the "jaggies" appear smoother, and less noticeable.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think AA isn't necessary, but it's a very nice feature. I noticed that the only visual flaws in most games (vs most decent CG art) is jaggies, which is much worse when showing polygons at only a slight angle. On regular TVs (ones that can't pull 720p or 1080i/p) will we even be able to notice jaggies? The downsampling of the the resolution makes me suspect we won't.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Pietak

You uh, didn't read the post? Even in PC games, this is a relevant and obvious issue; it just isn't as appearant because PC games are displayed at a higher resolution. Taking a single screen of a console game will have the same "jaggies" no matter what kind of AA hardware is in place, it is when the actual image is being projected on the screen, when the AA is able to take into effect and the "jaggies" appear smoother, and less noticeable.

Why do you try to reason with him? That whole post is joke, and come AC6, he'll be nutting over it's Blu-Ray disc with the Bananarang in hand (Yes, I know it's been scrapped).

Cetra pretty much summed it up well, but this is a framebuffer grab if you track it back to it's source. This and Warhawk are the only confirmed games from Sony, and take what Cetra said, the 7 1/2 months available to tweak this game until the new "launch date" and Factor 5's skill at making eye candy at launch and it's unlikely "jaggies" will be a problem.

Oh, Sega, you're right about that. Whatever harsh edges that remain will end up getting smoothed over to some extent due to the lower resolution and the blurring it introduces into the picture because of this. The effect will be more dramatic as the difference between the output and final resolution increases, IIRC.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I don't even see any jaggies in that Lair shot. And keep in mind it's still a work in progress. If you want a case of jaggies, you should take a look at the early Madden 2006 Xbox 360 shots from EGM.

I wonder if someone could give a list of all the features PS3 can implement to PS1 and PS2 games. It sounds like we'll be getting more than just texture smoothing and speedier load times. If that's the case, I hope someone makes a website that lists which features work best on which games. When I began tinkering with the two aformentioned options on my PS1 games, I learned that the quality varied with each title. For example, smoother texturing makes a fully 3D game like FFVIII look fantastic, but not so much on a sprite based game like Valkyrie Profile.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Metal Sphere

Why do you try to reason with him? That whole post is joke, and come AC6, he'll be nutting over it's Blu-Ray disc with the Bananarang in hand (Yes, I know it's been scrapped).

Hmm. That gives me an idea.

Double Post:
Impressive. I go to the XBOX forums, rant about my experience with the console, and come back unscathed.

Looks like there is no Forum discrimination...

I was speaking idiomatically.

I read a report that Panasonic will be releasing a Blu-Ray player at $1500 sometime this year.

With that cost and the cheaper cost of of the PS3 (compared to that price tag) it looks like those will be mostly bought for B-R playback, cost efficiency, yay.

With this bieng said (along with all the other features this machiene has) I am itching to know what the final launch price tag will be.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well.. that is how Sony sold so many PS2s back then. They were cheap ass DVD players and many purchased it for that. >.>

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Cetra in the Rev thread

It really seems Nintendo has sacrificed far too much for the controller. Sure, it might innovate input, but with such a small improvement in system specs they are pretty much making it impossible to improve gameplay anyway else other than though the controller.

Revolution owners are going to miss out on any type of new gameplay elements enchantments in AI, physics and such that developers might come up with using much more powerful hardware available elsewhere. I think Oblivion is just a nice sample of the type of things powerful processors are going to be able to bring to games this generation. But, only time will tell if the controller is going to bring enough to make up for this weakness.

It really seems Nintendo Sony hasn't sacrificed far too much enouh for the controller cost. Sure, it might innovate input impressive specs, but with such a small improvement in system specs controller design they are pretty much making it impossible to improve gameplay anyway else other than though the controller more bump mapping.

RevolutionPlaystation 3 owners are going to miss out on any type of new gameplay elements enchantments in AI, physics and such that developers might come up with using much more powerful hardware a motion sensor available elsewhere. I think Oblivion Spore is just a nice sample of the type of things powerful processors aren't going to be able to bring to games this generation needed for. But, only time will tell if the controller is going to bring enough to make up for this weakness.

Most amazing jew boots

What are you talking about Rab? Just because a system doesn't have a new controller design doesn't mean it won't be innovative.

The Blu-Ray discs will allow developers to add a lot more content for one. There's also still the EyeToy to consider along with any other peripherals they might come out with.

The PS3's not going to miss out on new gameplay elements -- if anything, the Revo will. Third-party developers may very possibly shy away from porting their titles to the Revolution due to lack of disc space and the sheer amount of dumbing-down they'd have to do as far as both content and graphics.

The poor Revolution's gonna be swamped with firsty-party titles and will likely end up with slack exclusives from third-parties. You can keep your ridiculously high hopes up for the Revo if you want, but I doubt it'll be worth it.

Most amazing jew boots

Third-party developers could also shy away from the PS3 because of the high costs needed to create the games. The draw of lower costs to develop with the Revo could bring in alot of people.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shonos

Third-party developers could also shy away from the Xbox 360 because of the high costs needed to create the games. The draw of lower costs to develop with the Revo could bring in alot of people.

See what I did there? There's no such thing happening. Developers expected a jump in development costs way back, and the big three have provided various ways of cutting costs. Either by providing middleware along with development kits or just plain old added support.

The Revolution could very well be mired in a sea of 1st party titles, with 3rd party developers avoiding the machine because of it's anti-port controller and high probability of a smaller market than either Sony or Microsoft.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Shonos

Third-party developers could also shy away from the PS3 because of the high costs needed to create the games. The draw of lower costs to develop with the Revo could bring in alot of people.

They could, but they aren't mostly because the increase in development costs are overinflated, mostly by Nintendo.

Quote:

Much like the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2, the PlayStation 3 will have strong third-party support, with most major third-party publishers and developers already working on titles for the machine, including EA, Konami, Namco, Capcom, Sega, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Square Enix, Atari, Activision, Midway, and countless others. At last count (TGS, in September '05), the list of Japanese publishers alone numbered 71. Suffice it to say that game companies seem to have every confidence that the PS3 will be just as successful as the PS2, if not more so.

Source

Just don't even bother bringing up a concern about 3rd party support for the PS3. It's already as strong for the PS3 as it was for the PS2 with pretty much every non Nintendo/Microsoft 1st/2nd party developer already in the process of making a game (if not games) for the PS3.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The good thing about game development with the xbox is that developers are good at using LIVE to add a good online experience. More or less most games on the xbox do have some sort of online LIVE functionality one way or another.

Thats what I am hoping for with the PS3, as having this new online 'playstaion hub' service is no good if the game developers don't use it, just look at the PS2 online service for example. So I really am hoping that most PS3 game developers do take account of the online gamer like most xbox devs do.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Cetra

They could, but they aren't mostly because the increase in development costs are overinflated, mostly by Nintendo.

Originally Posted by News

Here’s one reason why: If today’s consoles are in the second half of the cycle, development costs should be in decline as game developers reach the technical limits of the platform. That’s not happening.

“Research and development costs continue to go up,” said Richard Ow, a game analyst for the NPD Group.

In 1996 a typical PlayStation game cost less than $1 million to make and sold for $49. Today, development costs for an Xbox or PlayStation 2 game run anywhere from $5 million to $7 million per title and sell for $49.99. And some game titles can cost upwards of $30 million.

Source

That's a 700% increase and these are old figures. Did you realise most games don't even turn a profit these days?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RABicle

That's a 700% increase and these are old figures. Did you realise most games don't even turn a profit these days?

Yeah, but blockbusters make more money than ever. Look at The Sims, it has made more than most movies. Videogames have alomst inifnite potential, that's why companies are willing to invest so much money in them.
Plus $30 million is conservative compared to many movie budgets, they should learn how to do more with less than less with more.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RABicle

That's a 700% increase and these are old figures. Did you realise most games don't even turn a profit these days?

Orly? So I guess game developers stay in business by printing fake money right? Sorry, but while game cost has increased 700% the console industry has grown over 2000%. The holiday season of 2005 was the most profitable season in the history of video gaming for game developers. I have no idea where you got the idea that most games don't turn a profit, but I'm guessing from Nintendo PR.

The growth rate of the industry still far exceeds the growth rate of development costs. If developers were truly concerned about rising costs, they would not be showing such a strong backing for the PS3. But simple fact remains is the PS1 and PS2 have made 3rd party developers a LOT of money and they don't expect anything less of the PS3.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Cetra

I have no idea where you got the idea that most games don't turn a profit, but I'm guessing from Nintendo PR.

Holy crap, I lol'd pretty hard there. Makes me wonder how much profit Donkey Konga turned.

Besides that Rab, I would assume that you of all people would know what you said is false -- look at Super Smash Bros. Melee! I hate that game for all that it is, but I won't deny that it's the Cube's best selling game, and it has more than turned a profit for Nintendo. The same goes for Halo and the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Have you guys been living under a rock?

Originally Posted by Cetra

Orly? So I guess game developers stay in business by printing fake money right? Sorry, but while game cost has increased 700% the console industry has grown over 2000%.

The BBC differs, they say forcasted growth of the games industry is only 10% I don't know, where you got this 2000% idea from but certainly there aren't many more console sales this gen than last gen, let alone 20 times as many.

Originally Posted by Southjag

Besides that Rab, I would assume that you of all people would know what you said is false -- look at Super Smash Bros. Melee! I hate that game for all that it is, but I won't deny that it's the Cube's best selling game, and it has more than turned a profit for Nintendo. The same goes for Halo and the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

Wow that's exatly the point. Smash Brothers, Halo, GTA. These games all turned a profit. They were huge megahits. The Megahits all turn profits the games that try fail and lose money. Tons of money. Driv3r is the most extreme example.
And what about all those otehr games that don't? In case you've all forgotton the all the hostile takeovers, buyouts, mergers and bankrupcys of the past few years. Interplay, Acclaim, Eidos. These weren't small time developers.

As for the Nintendo PR I get my ideas from, better get reading guys.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/3
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/9/4

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RABicle

Have you guys been living under a rock?

The BBC differs, they say forcasted growth of the games industry is only 10% I don't know, where you got this 2000% idea from but certainly there aren't many more console sales this gen than last gen, let alone 20 times as many.

Uh, look at the value of the gaming industry when games costs 1 million to make. It was about half a billion dollars. The industry is now worth around 28 billion dollars. That is actually a 5600% growth.

Games have gone from $1 million to upward to $30 million maximum. 3000% growth rate only if you consider the maximum cost of game rather than the average cost. 5600% > 3000%, the industry is growing faster than the cost to be in the industry, hence companies are still making heavy profit even with the rising cost in developing games.

Will it last? No, but does it matter this generation? Again, no. The industry is still in the middle of major growth and development. All this worry about rising development costs is irrelevant until the industry begins to hit its equilibrium point. Until then, you simply cannot state something like "Games cost to much to make" while the industry continues to grow and an incredible rate. The value of the industry dictates when things start to cost too much.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Here's another concept you're overlooking Rab. SSBM, Halo, GTA....they all spend mega-bucks making these quality games. I can only imagine that Driver 3's production costs wren't very close to what GTA's were. Games like Stuart Little, Finding Nemo, etc. won't have the same production costs as Halo, GTA, or SSB Melee.

Even if they don't turn a profit, their losses may have been negligible at best.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Note that this is UNCONFIRMED but this is a concept controller for the PS3.



Source:http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_...ic_id=24492033

I'm not too sure what to think of it. It doesn't seem to go well with the PS3 console, but it does look more comfortable than the boomerang.

The thing though is I'm surprised it's using the old PS logo instead of the "spiderman" font. But again it's a placeholder image I guess.

Most amazing jew boots

Interesting. I hope they also give the console itself a makeover to look better.
I can use a PS3 now without getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome...

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I didn't want to sound like a stick in the mud, but I personally like the PS2's look overall. The front grill makes it sleek yet "powerful" looking (okay for it's time, duh). I saw this picture quite a while ago of speculating the PS3's look:

I like this one the best:



This dish type console looks very clean and sleek, but too bad it's now just a dream. ;_;...

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Spatula

I didn't want to sound like a stick in the mud, but I personally like the PS2's look overall. The front grill makes it sleek yet "powerful" looking (okay for it's time, duh). I saw this picture quite a while ago of speculating the PS3's look:

I like this one the best:



This dish type console looks very clean and sleek, but too bad it's now just a dream. ;_;...

Considering they're shoving PS3/PS2/PS1 hardware and Blu-Ray playback, I'd be surprised if the PS3 is even as small as the original PS2. It'll probably be the size of the original XBox if Sony doesn't want the thing crammed so tight it melts within one hour of use.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?