|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > September 2006 > PS3 "takes about twice the efford and development cost"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
PS3 "takes about twice the efford and development cost"
|
|
| stopdropandroll 2006-09-22, 7:34 pm |
| From Gamasutra.com
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/ne...php?story=10974
"But he did comment specifically on how difficult it is to program for
multi-core processors and the even more complex Cell chip used in the
PlayStation 3. He noted that it "takes about twice the effort and
development cost to develop for a multi-threaded CPU," compared to a
single-core CPU. Even more than that, according to Epic's analysis, fully
exploiting the PS3 Cell chip "required about 5 times as much cost and
development time than single-core."
| |
| booty bandit 2006-09-22, 7:34 pm |
|
"stopdropandroll" <thegameofliyf@products.com> wrote in message
news:12h89af335fd0fa@news.supernews.com...
quote:
> "But he did comment specifically on how difficult it is to program for
> multi-core processors and the even more complex Cell chip used in the
> PlayStation 3. He noted that it "takes about twice the effort and
> development cost to develop for a multi-threaded CPU," compared to a
> single-core CPU. Even more than that, according to Epic's analysis, fully
> exploiting the PS3 Cell chip "required about 5 times as much cost and
> development time than single-core."
Who gives a shit "XXXXoffanddie"?
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-09-22, 7:34 pm |
| stopdropandroll <thegameofliyf@products.com> wrote:
quote:
> From Gamasutra.com
> http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/ne...php?story=10974
quote:
> "But he did comment specifically on how difficult it is to program for
> multi-core processors and the even more complex Cell chip used in the
> PlayStation 3. He noted that it "takes about twice the effort and
> development cost to develop for a multi-threaded CPU," compared to a
> single-core CPU. Even more than that, according to Epic's analysis, fully
> exploiting the PS3 Cell chip "required about 5 times as much cost and
> development time than single-core."
Don't they teach multi-threaded programming methods in college anymore? I
was doing that 15 years ago.
And it seems developers are always complaining about how "hard" or
"difficult" it is to deal with new hardware, but after a year or two, the
complaints seem to stop.
Yes, change is hard. Get over it.
| |
|
| In article <12h8o83j46ro485@corp.supernews.com>,
Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
quote:
> And it seems developers are always complaining about how "hard" or
> "difficult" it is to deal with new hardware, but after a year or two, the
> complaints seem to stop.
You wonder if developers who've shipped a lot of games are really
complaining or it's gamers who know nothing about development who assume
they're complaining.
If a developer has any kind of ability, they look at new architectures
and technologies as an intellectual challenge. If on the other hand a
developer just wants to crank out code on a familiar platform, how good
is that game going to be?
In the case of the PS2, it didn't matter how unusual the architecture
was. It was the leading platform so the jobs were there for PS2 games
and if you wanted the work, you learned the architecture.
There are some games developers posting on beyond3d.com and you can tell
they look back fondly on how they solved some problems using the VU0 and
UV1.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-09-25, 7:34 pm |
| poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote:
quote:
> You wonder if developers who've shipped a lot of games are really
> complaining or it's gamers who know nothing about development who assume
> they're complaining.
quote:
> If a developer has any kind of ability, they look at new architectures
> and technologies as an intellectual challenge. If on the other hand a
> developer just wants to crank out code on a familiar platform, how good
> is that game going to be?
My guess is that when a new architecture comes out, the developers have to
take time away from making games (ie. the fun stuff) and have to put
efforts into developing a decent compiler and libraries. Almost no one
enjoys doing performance tweaking. It's highly mathematical and tedius work
that often requires large amounts of effort for seemingly small returns.
After all, what will game reviewers talk about - graphics, or how efficient
your bitmap transform algorithm is? About the only kudos this sort of work
will garner is in the few mentions of things like load times, or draw-in
distances.
Developers were often quoted as saying it was easier to code for the Xbox
- furthermore saying that the compiler and libraries received from
Microsoft were pretty good to begin with. Sony, meanwhile, has always
caught flack for providing bare-bone developer tools and even worse
documentation. From this standpoint, the Playstation would certainly be
"more difficult" to develop for, but overall shouldn't be any
harder/easier than Xbox.
|
| |
|
|