To ppl that were/are haters of Cell processor in PS3

[KungMartin90]

I know that the downside of the Cell processor was that it was very unknown architecture. And it was very hard for many developers to really tame it. Which decreased the amount of visually amazing/overall quality of many games, as well as scared off many developers. Aaand, it also made multi-platform games really bad (because no one could be bothered to optimize for PS3, except for rare cases)

But to be perfectly fair, anyone who bought a PS3 to play multiplatform games was anyway doing it wrong. Where the PS3 really shined/shines, is the 100% PS3 exclusives. And they very clearly prove how all the Cell "hype" wasn't just hype, this was/is a very powerful processor.

The latest game (for example) from Naughty Dog which is coming out soon, The Last of Us, totally proves this. Everything from animation, NPC AI, and visuals. It has amazing effects like 100% dynamic shadows (which so far the only game that really does that is Crysis 3, and that's on pc with highest settings. Actually not even Crysis 3 does 100% dynamic. It's more like 90% dynamic. Because I noticed that the red light flares don't cast shadow. Which even the Uncharted games on PS3 do. This says something, right?). And stuff like that requires REALLY powerfull processing.

So I think in the end, all the downsides were outweighed by the upside.

But I'm also very excited for PS4, because I know it's VERY powerful + extremely easy to develop for. So this MIGHT bring us back, or atleast close to the awesome days of PS2 era in best case scenario.

I guess we can finally say goodbye and thanks for a great gen, and say hi to next gen

Thoughts?

[mickice]

Definitely, Sony basically had all genres covered, provided to stayed first party or built on PS3 first you had a great time with a great system.
Ontop of this a good majority of third party titles which were ported played fine, you can split hairs on resolution and frame rate all you like but most games had issues here on every system.

Also being a first party PS3 gamer gave you a ton of 3D games too which work lovely on my $1k sony oled 3D headset.

[K2D]

I think the games Naughty Dog make, speaks more about the developer than the Cell-processor.

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

I think the games Naughty Dog make, speaks more about the developer than the Cell-processor.

This! Plus first parties always get the most help from a console maker, so that's why they usually get the best results.

As for the Cell? Consider me a hater and for good reason. It was such a hot mess that two of it's co-inventors (Sony & Toshiba) have left it behind and IBM is only using it for very niche applications. That speaks volumes. Sony was very smart to ditch it and go x86 with the PS4.

[Syphon_Filter]

I think the games Naughty Dog make, speaks more about the developer than the Cell-processor.

You are right.

[mickice]

Naughty Dog were not alone, Guerrilla Games, Polyphony Digital, Sucker Punch, Evolution, Santamonica Studio, Quantic Dreams so on and so forth.

[K2D]

Naughty Dog were not alone, Guerrilla Games, Polyphony Digital, Sucker Punch, Evolution, Santamonica Studio, Quantic Dreams so on and so forth.

I'm with you on that. Credit where credit's due.

[Bigdoggy]

I have to say I wasn't really that impressed with Sony this gen, While I liked the games it just didn't get me all that pumped and I was expecting a lot more. Now since the announcement of the PS4, I'm excited, the majority of developers seem excited and that causes me to get pumped. In my opinion the PS4 will do much, much better compared to the PS3.

[Aquanox]

The Cell was a terrible mistake by Sony:

1. They rushed the GPU production to Nvidia because they wanted to make the Cell the main GPU, they failed and nVidia had no time to optimize the RSX for the PS3... hence the underpowered GPU compared to the Xbox 360's.
2. A console can't rely solely on first party titles. Yes some notable developers did an amazing job with the Cell but on the balance it became mainly a console for Elite programmers, leaving those with less resources behind.
3. The Cell brought a load of bad marketing from the developer community, resulting in 2-3 years of sub-par multiplatform titles. Some people would say only the hardcores care about it but it was precisely the hardcores the biggest source of profit in those years, considering how expensive the console was, which leads me to my next point.
4. The Cell, being a new architecture contributed to make the PS3 a lot more expensive, being blu-ray the biggest reason. (I think they nailed it though with BR)

For every experience though, there are good things to be learned but it was a terrible harsh path for Sony in this generation, going from being the indisputable leader to fight the second place with a newcomer like Microsoft.

Lessons learned with the Cell:

1. PS3 programmers are now much more skilled. If devs were RPG characters, the PS3 made them reach Elite Levels.
2. Sony learned the hard way and now their console is much more developer-customer friendly. Excellent.
3. Sony is also applying the lessons learned with the Playststion 3 (i.e. Customers aren't lemmings following whatever direction they want to take due to brand loyalty) and applied them to other products of them. The best example of this is the fantastic Sony Xperia Z Smartphone... a gadget I'm eager to put my claws on.

All in all, Sony has a big opportunity here, they're making wiser decisions lately and left their arrogance aside to please customers. That's just how things should be done.

Cheers!

[TAZ427]

The Cell was a terrible mistake by Sony:

1. They rushed the GPU production to Nvidia because they wanted to make the Cell the main GPU, they failed and nVidia had no time to optimize the RSX for the PS3... hence the underpowered GPU compared to the Xbox 360's.
2. A console can't rely solely on first party titles. Yes some notable developers did an amazing job with the Cell but on the balance it became mainly a console for Elite programmers, leaving those with less resources behind.
3. The Cell brought a load of bad marketing from the developer community, resulting in 2-3 years of sub-par multiplatform titles. Some people would say only the hardcores care about it but it was precisely the hardcores the biggest source of profit in those years, considering how expensive the console was, which leads me to my next point.
4. The Cell, being a new architecture contributed to make the PS3 a lot more expensive, being blu-ray the biggest reason. (I think they nailed it though with BR)

For every experience though, there are good things to be learned but it was a terrible harsh path for Sony in this generation, going from being the indisputable leader to fight the second place with a newcomer like Microsoft.

Lessons learned with the Cell:

1. PS3 programmers are now much more skilled. If devs were RPG characters, the PS3 made them reach Elite Levels.
2. Sony learned the hard way and now their console is much more developer-customer friendly. Excellent.
3. Sony is also applying the lessons learned with the Playststion 3 (i.e. Customers aren't lemmings following whatever direction they want to take due to brand loyalty) and applied them to other products of them. The best example of this is the fantastic Sony Xperia Z Smartphone... a gadget I'm eager to put my claws on.

All in all, Sony has a big opportunity here, they're making wiser decisions lately and left their arrogance aside to please customers. That's just how things should be done.

Cheers!

While I agree with these sentiments the one thing you need to keep in mind, in order to create something that really is innovative you really need to do things outside the box from how they have been done. I think they tried to do that with the CELL, but were not successful do to how difficult it was to program.

I applaud them for realizing this isn't the area they need to be focusing on innovating on this generation (or limiting the scope of doing so that it has the feel of a standard architecture with some enhancements.)

That said, they should not stagnate and say, this is the way things are done so we must do them that way. That's how you grow complacent, you lose your edge, and you eventually fail. Instead keep looking for that next big thing, just keep in mind that it needs to be customer friendly (that includes developers and gamers in the case of gaming consoles.)

[Bigdoggy]

Tell you why also, because there are a few people that aren't there anymore and also Howard Stringer (jabba the hut) isn't running the company anymore either. That right there is most likely a reason we are seeing Sony doing a smooth run.

[mickice]

Tell you why also, because there are a few people that aren't there anymore and also Howard Stringer (jabba the hut) isn't running the company anymore either. That right there is most likely a reason we are seeing Sony doing a smooth run.

Jabba and Crazy Ken have both been pushed out of the picture, Kaz Hirai is nailing it.
Now would be a good time to buy Sony shares things can only go up.

[mertle]

I felt disapointed in the hate towards cell from developers. They want easy food chain to programme not saying lazy or poor but just felt roots gone. First party showed its capabilities if you put time effort into it.

Was it mistake yes and No. Yes because without those multiplats using it correctly it opened window for microsoft to get edge by making sure to get games delayed or even make sure they programmed xbox first despite being told other way round was better.

No as it produced some cracking games and folding home uses for science. It was powerful that businesses started piggyback them make supercomputers.

Cell was ahead of its time feel but demands for speed in development sadly means its bang bang bang bang approach to games. Sadly reason was money. Developers cant spend months making beautiful game that for many both games was equal that was disapointing for cell it was capable so much more it was offered.

Am disapointed cell been left yes in away time will tell if going to mainstream pc procesor right move possible is but is to be fair. Cell really never deserved the hate it got.

[Shibby]

Yes, the PS3 absolutely shined with its exclusives.

But to say that PS3 owners shouldn't care about multiplatform games is just wrong.

Uncharted, God of War, etc. all look and play great, obviously. But if Sony went with a powerful, but more familiar, architecture with PS3 rather than spending a buttload of money on Cell+RSX, those games would likely have still be possible AND we would have gotten better quality multiplats on top of it.

[KungMartin90]

Yes, the PS3 absolutely shined with its exclusives.

But to say that PS3 owners shouldn't care about multiplatform games is just wrong.

Uncharted, God of War, etc. all look and play great, obviously. But if Sony went with a powerful, but more familiar, architecture with PS3 rather than spending a buttload of money on Cell+RSX, those games would likely have still be possible AND we would have gotten better quality multiplats on top of it.

Well then I doubt games like Uncharted series, Infamous 2, GT5, God of War 3/Ascension, The Last of Us etc etc. would look and play as amazing as they do.

[Completely Average]

Well then I doubt games like Uncharted series, Infamous 2, GT5, God of War 3/Ascension, The Last of Us etc etc. would look and play as amazing as they do.

I doubt that anything about those games was dependent on Cell.

Games are ideas first. The hard part is making your idea work on the hardware you are given. Different hardware doesn't change the idea, and most of the time easier to work with hardware makes it easier to make your ideas a reality.

Cell had some advantages but most of them were lost in poor design and planning of the system. Sony could have gone the same route as they have with the PS4, using 'off the shelf' parts and focusing on ease of programing and efficiency and achieved the same results with much less cost and trouble.

That is why they went with the 'off the shelf' route with the PS4. Almost everything about it is better than the PS3 specifically because everything about it is made easier to produce and work with.

[K2D]

I doubt that anything about those games was dependent on Cell.

Games are ideas first. The hard part is making your idea work on the hardware you are given. Different hardware doesn't change the idea, and most of the time easier to work with hardware makes it easier to make your ideas a reality.

Cell had some advantages but most of them were lost in poor design and planning of the system. Sony could have gone the same route as they have with the PS4, using 'off the shelf' parts and focusing on ease of programing and efficiency and achieved the same results with much less cost and trouble.

That is why they went with the 'off the shelf' route with the PS4. Almost everything about it is better than the PS3 specifically because everything about it is made easier to produce and work with.

Like I said earlier, it's the devs that makes these games what they are, still, you wouldn't get gems like these first party titles on any other platform last gen.

It's like this: when what you get is hardware with a lot of locked potential, you strive more to unlock that potenial. It's not a holy grail.

[Shibby]

Like I said earlier, it's the devs that makes these games what they are, still, you wouldn't get gems like these first party titles on any other platform last gen.

It's like this: when what you get is hardware with a lot of locked potential, you strive more to unlock that potenial. It's not a holy grail.

That's not down to the hardware. That's down to Sony's unwavering support of new IP.

More conventional hardware design would have had a lot of untapped potential as well in a closed system like PS3, and it would have been utilized much sooner.

Just because something is difficult doesn't necessarily make it better.

[Old Man Gamer]

Yes, the PS3 absolutely shined with its exclusives.

But to say that PS3 owners shouldn't care about multiplatform games is just wrong.

Uncharted, God of War, etc. all look and play great, obviously. But if Sony went with a powerful, but more familiar, architecture with PS3 rather than spending a buttload of money on Cell+RSX, those games would likely have still be possible AND we would have gotten better quality multiplats on top of it.

I agree 100%. Sony has the best exclusives but MS was much stronger with the ease of development for third party games. Sony should have not spent all of that money on the cell and put more into RAM and making the PS3 more developer friendly.

They did it with the PS4 but simply made the wrong decision with the PS3. The delayed launch and ridiculously high launch price really hurt them.

[Shibby]

I agree 100%. Sony has the best exclusives but MS was much stronger with the ease of development for third party games. Sony should have not spent all of that money on the cell and put more into RAM and making the PS3 more developer friendly.

They did it with the PS4 but simply made the wrong decision with the PS3. The delayed launch and ridiculously high launch price really hurt them.

Only thing we can ask is that they learn from their mistakes, and it seems they're doing that. Think this is shaping up to be an incredible generation for games.

[Shibby]

Well then I doubt games like Uncharted series, Infamous 2, GT5, God of War 3/Ascension, The Last of Us etc etc. would look and play as amazing as they do.

I don't believe that. One thing to point out is that they are STILL learning about the thing and STILL unlocking more power from it. But is that necessarily a good thing?

Is it really better to release something that developers won't be able to fully realize the potential of for years or something that they can use comfortably from day one, but that could still be just as powerful? I'd opt for the latter.

With the money they dumped into CELL they could have given us top of the line PROVEN technologies and achieved the same, or even better, results.

[Bigdoggy]

What that proves is that's a waste of money. The cell was a flat out waste of money because it set certain boundries. When a company has to jump through hoops and a console company keeps on setting boundries so nothing is maxed out, that actually hurts them more than anything. Not only was it overpriced hardware, but you can get better deals elsewhere. IBM sure took Sony for a ride with that unit, wheeeeew.

[coolguy]

i was not a fan of the Cell processor it was holding sony back. and sony said the cell would be in every thing from the ps3 to tvs and that was false lol.

[chrisw26308]

to their credit they were not afraid to take risks.

they were trying to hit a homerun out of the park, and instead it went foul.

in hindsight I am now a cell hater. I'm sure sony is too with all the money they lost on r and d.

It was a good effort gone bad.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[KungMartin90]

they were trying to hit a homerun out of the park, and instead it went foul.

Not necessarily though. That's what I'm trying to say