Slashdot Mirror
Conflicting Reports of PS3 Programming Difficulty
xenongamer writes "It appears there isn't any type of concensus regarding the programming difficulty of Sony and IBM's upcoming Cell processor. From the article: 'Although few doubt the relative power of the Cell microprocessor, many have expressed concern over the chip's asymmetric design, which makes programming for it a potential disaster ... One such man was 3D artist Josh Robinson, who was fired from his position at Sony just weeks after making a public, negative comment about PlayStation 3 development on his Internet blog.'"
The debate currently centers on whether it's very difficult or extremely difficult to program for the PS3.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
Games have gotten much more complicated over the years. Not long ago, anybody could make a game that was on par with the best. Then, It became too hard to make your own game, the best you could do was make mods to existing games. Now, games are so complicated that only people who want to spend tons of time can even learn how to make the mods. Now with the PS3, games will be so complicated, that not even the developers will be able to make them.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The guy was an ARTIST fired for for saying less than flattering things not only about an early development box, but the product he was working on. His opinion about how hard it is to program counts for nothing, he's not doing it, everything was heresay. His primarily complaint was that his game was not taking advantage of the PS3 because they were putting schedule before quality. Anecdotally he referred to other companies that may be doing the same. Nor do I give any attention at all to someones COMPETITOR who claims it is "a nightmare".
I wouldn't give him much air time, I'd rather hear from developers actually working with it. Those who have detailed architectural drawings, APIs etc. Even (especially) if they have to go to great lengths to achieve anonymity. Those guys would know what potential may or may not exist. This article does not give us information on that, the closest we come is a chief architect at a game haus who says he likes it. He's probably closer to development than the others, but still not reliable (since he's on record) and unless title inflation has gone mad, not someone directly doing the work.
A non-story.
Compared to Sega Saturn's dual processor hell, the Sony PlayStation was leaps and bounds easier to develop on. Of all the games released for the Saturn, only one (Panzer Dragoon Saga) managed to utilize them correctly (and it looks beautiful to boot). Everything else was designed either on one processor or a staggered mechanism that failed to extract the parallelism. This led to the belief that the PlayStation was far more powerful than the Saturn.
Now, the PlayStation 3 has (God knows what reason) nine concurrent microprocessors. Even if only one is primary and seven of the secondary ones are active, it'll be leaps and bounds more difficult to develop software than just two. And the difficulty curve is not linear; more processors would yield far more difficulty.
Of course, all this would be theoretically handled by a smart compiler. But compilers today are struggling with mere dual-core systems, let alone nine different processors. As for assembly coding, look at the failure that is the Saturn. I'm not questioning the power of the Cell. I'm questioning whether a developer exists in the world to extract at least half of its potential.
The same thing was said about the PS2. The developers of Oddworld switched from the PS2 to the XBOX early on, citing the fact that the PS2 was too hard to code for. There was widespread concern then that the PS2 was going to be too difficult to be viable.
How about everyone wait for the system to actually come out before making judgments on it?
What I've heard is that they have a development environment for the Cell processor (now released) that has at least a working compiler. If that's true, then they've already gone beyond what was available for the PlayStation 2, at least at the level of programming the Linux kit.
Craig Steffen
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Point - Multiprocessing systems are the general direction computing is going in. The new Mac's use it (core duo) , the PC's Hyperthreaded dual core's. Xbox 360's and of Course the PS3.
That said - Asumming the 360 has "Symmetric" architecture and the PS3 "Assymetric" as the guy is implying.
Lets discover exactly what the difference is between the two.
My understanding is that Symmetric multiprocessing (Xbox 360) gives each processor identical levels of responsibility for processing tasks. For example - on a linux SMP system the kernel will try to balance processes equally across each processor. Only if an application process is specifically written to thread its own tasks across both processors will it be shared across them. This is why having a multiprocessor computer rarely makes much difference to a uniprocessor machine unless the game is specifically written to take advantage of a multiprocessing environment. Games like this are currently rare.
Taking a look at Asymettric procesing... (PS3) This allows us to give each processors specific tasks. For example we could dedicate 1 cell chip to running say the AI for a game, another for the Player physics and the rest for graphics and sound. This actually makes the design of the system considerably simpler and easier to abstract - although it could be argued that it reduces the overall performace of the system. Good job then that the PS3 has more than twice the amount of processors as the 360. However the same can be said for the PS3 as the 360 - Unless games are specifically written to take advantage of a multiprocessor environment there is little advantage in having them. Both consoles are going to require a new mindset and learning curve before either will reach their true potential. This has always been the case and so long as technology keeps changing will continue to do so.
I'd like to add to this that ID Software is not traditionally a Playstation development studio. There are only two releases I can think of - Quake 2 (PSX) and Quake 3 (PS2). They are traditionally a PC studio - and their experience of development therefore lies in this area. XBox 360 is designed with this in mind. It does stand to reason that Carmack's team would agree with this - simply because the Microsoft Development platform is what they have been doing for years. Id like to hear what a tradional Playstation dev studio says about the 360 as a development platform, or Nintendo for example.
Pick any console from any manufacturer. compare a launch title with another title on the same platform later in its lifecycle. In most cases there will be significant improvements this shows only that it takes time - (and library updates) to climb to the top.
Despite all of this I have to say that what matters most of all here is not how powerful one system or another is. What really matters are the games. At this moment in time I can't justify buying a new console just because it has better graphics or sound. Those things matter less and less as time goes by- The game plays the same no matter how many more polygons it is or isnt shifting. Lets be honest here - leaving visuals and sound out of the equation - what kinds of gameplay can be created now that could never have been done prior to these next generation machines? Perhaps the answer to that question can hinted at by looking at the kinds of tasks most suited to multiprocessing systems.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I always thought it was because Nintendo systems didn't use "standard" media, like CDs and DVDs. They used carts up until the GameCube-era, and even then, they had some mini-disc format. (I'm not sure how protected that media was)
... it's certainly been a while.
When games were in cartridge format, there were various accessories that were sold that let folks read them in and "back up" the games to a separate storage device. Conversely, you could also read from such devices as well, and it opened the door for piracy. I believe (although I'm too lazy to Google), that Nintendo did frown upon that and went after people/groups that did this. I could be mistaken though
-- jchenx
Or at minimal, this is difficult if you've been trained to program in a single-processor enviroment. Crow, there are languages and compilers out there built from the ground up for that kind of enviroment. If schools stopped being so scared of teaching little jimmy anything that wasn't "this is in the top 10 skills on monster.com" maybe more people would learn them (I was actually in the LAST class at my university to teach such languages.. after which they were replaced by javascript and perl...)
It could well be both at the same time.
After all, the Cell sounds complicated and powerful enough that there's probably some quantum in there somewhere.
Strength through redundancy and over-design
With all this programming power, and graphics and sound all sorted out, what's needed is a game that makes full use of the processing power needed for AI.o n genre
I present to the next-gen game genre:- The Too-many-things-on-the-screen-requiring-calculati
TMTOTSRC games for short
So what we need are next-gen versions of
http://kevan.org/proce55ing/zombies/
and an updated version of...
http://www.classicgaming.com/rotw/crossroads/
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Nintendo isn't exactly on the forefront of anti-piracy method when you really think about it.
Well, I ended up doing some searching, and it turns out that they've actually tried to crackdown on piracy quite a bit.
Nintendo's Late 2004 Piracy Crackdown
Nintendo Wins Lik Sang Piracy Case
Lik Sang On Nintendo Piracy Judgment
It sounds like Nintendo hasn't really invested much in DRM in the past, but instead chooses to go after sellers, and companies like Lik Sang, which manufactured "backup devices". I agree with the former, but the latter seems like a stretch, and ideally screws over legitamate users of the devices.
I wonder if they'll continue down the same road. Don't bother locking down the media, but go after the pirates themselves, and possibly whatever tools that they use to do the dirty work. (Sony and Microsoft have been doing the same thing, trying to go after modders that open up the box for piracy)
-- jchenx
Now, all I have to ask is -- how the FUCK is that even possible? The PS3's specs beat the Xbox360's in every possible way!
A lot of the theoretical power in the PS3 comes from multiplying the power of each processor times the number of processors. Actually being able to make use of parallel processing power is notoriously hard. Usually one step of a computation depends on another. Programming for concurrency is in general a nightmare. Games will be buggier and much harder to develop if they want to make full use of the parallel cores. Sorry, no free lunch here.
Comparing the specs of the system is not straightforward. You can't just do something like a 0-60 mph benchmark like you would for a car. I don't think you are up for it, but if you want to get an inkling of the tradeoffs involved, here's a link: Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PS3 - A Hardware Discussion
I feel sorry for the developers who have to make their games portable for both systems. I suspect we will get a lot of lowest-common-denominator games. It will be interesting to see if Sony can make a game that shows off the PS3 in a way that the 360 can't match.
But yeah it looks like Nintendo is going after the pirates instead of lumping everyone into one group and assuming they're all pirates. The lack of any major anti-pirating actions since the Lik Sang case seems to support this.
/.-ers apparently) disagree that the only folks using their devices were piraters. It sounds much like the claims of P2P creators. Lik Sang's backup devices can be used for legal AND illegal means. But Nintendo chose to lump all of the device users as potential piraters and unleashed their lawyers to prevent Lik Sang from selling anymore of these devices.
... no, Nintendo's media apparently doesn't have much copy protection. But I certainly wouldn't call it a sign that they're less restrictive than any other console developer. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Revolution media sports more DRM. You also have to consider that Nintendo is going to be releasing a bunch of retro titles available for download, which will have to be protected in some way. And unfortunately, they may find it a good time to go after emulators again, since there will be a business model for selling old titles. I'm going to have to predict MORE legislation and anti-piracy action over the next few years.
I still can't say that Nintendo is that much different than others when it comes to anti-pirating efforts. Lik Sang (and many
It's a very similar to Sony's and Microsoft's claims to modders. Remember, they also sued Lik Sang for producing many of these mod chips. Search the archives for more info. Sure, not EVERYONE who mods their consoles does it for piracy reasons. Quite a few do it to disable region checking (although that's potentially illegal as well). Yet, it's a lot easier to just lump the whole group together and assume that the majority of folks are using it to pirate games. (My hunch would be that it's not far from the truth)
After doing some additional reading and refreshing of memory, I believe that trying to claim that Nintendo is essentially more "pirate friendly" than Sony or Microsoft is just crazy. Just because there weren't any major anti-pirating actions reported in the media last year, doesn't mean that they're more open by any means. If anything, their history shows that they'll always be protective of their content and games, by any means necessary.
Here are some more articles:
Nintendo Creates Piracy-Proof Console For China
Nintendo Confirms It Will Sue UltraHLE Creators
Nintendo Blocking Counterfeit Game Machines
I'm not trying to knock Nintendo down by any means. I love their handhelds and was definately a Nintendo "fan-boi" as a kid. Also, I'll actually agree with many of their above actions. If they believe piracy is costing them a decent amount of profit, then I'd much rather see them go after the bad guys than go bankrupt (of course that's incredibly unlikely, given their general profitability). Unfortunately, they're going to hurt legitimate users along the way.
So, going back to the original conversation
-- jchenx
Type 1 thinks in "i_unknown" theoretical concepts, tries to create a framework to rely on and then starts looking what the metal is capable of.
Type 2 looks at the metal, plays around with it, reads the manuals, plays around a little longer to make sure everything needed is understood, and then evaluates the possibility to use either a supplied framework (customized if needed) or to create a new framework.
I had my fair share of type 1s, I had my fair share of type 2s.
Type 1 had problems with the console-programming more than often, the perfectly crafted framework had to be duct-taped to the metal because it implied functionality that simply wasn't there, thus delaying delivery dates.
Type 2 sometimes got lost in the possibilities of the metal, but delivered results.
Before you start to flame me now: the type 1 approach is valid if the feature-set of the hardware is known and tested, but, if dealing with metal of not-so-tested capabilities, type 2 is needed to make sure there are no surprises later. To make my point: I had to fight with a type 1 at one time because the framework he invented didn't match the features of Nintendos GC. For him, this was no problem, "let's create another thousand classes and it will work." He did not understand that programming on metal, read consoles, is different from programming on a PC with an OS.
Maybe its time for the studios/programmers complaining about difficulties to evaluate the number of type 1s vs. the number of type 2s in the team. It won't work without a good mix of both and clear cut responsibilities/planning before.
just my 2 cents