4 ms·

I remember the Idle Thumbs podcast made a running joke of the fact that 2010 was supposed to be "Year of the PS3" because I believe Kaz Hirai had suggested that

I remember the Idle Thumbs podcast made a running joke of the fact that 2010 was supposed to be "Year of the PS3" because I believe Kaz Hirai had suggested that it would take multiple years for developers to unlock the true power of the system. Which is an excellent way to brand how much of a pain it was for Devs to wring performance out of it.

itisit 5y ago
I think it’s been 3-4 years for devs to utilize the potential of a given console from the 5th gen onwards. I’d be curious to read of a console that was a dream to develop for soon as people got their hands on a devkit.
maccard 5y ago
There's an element of truth in that, but also there's the fact that as a developer, if you have to choose between a) shipping on a new console with a smaller install base, b) shipping on an old console with an established user base, c) shipping on 2 platforms at once Then option (c) is only possible if you reduce the game to the lowest common denominator(with option option (a) becomes more appealing 2-3 years after the fact). Nowadays the difference is less significantbetween PS4 and PS5 (or Xbox One and Xbox Series), but it's still a non-trivial amount to maintain; it would have been vastly more difficult with orders of magnitude in performance (between a PS2 and a PS3), or different programming paradigms (PS3 cell vs PS4 x86).
mywittyname 5y ago
This wasn't unusual sentiment for the time. Historically, consoles had a stark difference in quality between the initial batch of games for any system, and the last AAA titles for it. Compare Super Mario to Super Mario 3 on the NES. Or Donkey Kong Country vs Super Mario World on the SNES. Or LoK: Soul Reaver to Tomb Raider 1 on the PS1. Some of the later PS3 games still look incredible. The biggest graphics limitation is resolution.
- Grazester 5y ago
  And some of those games on the PS3 ran at 20 fps. Hitting 30 when nothing was happening on screen.

itisit 5y ago

I think it’s been 3-4 years for devs to utilize the potential of a given console from the 5th gen onwards. I’d be curious to read of a console that was a dream to develop for soon as people got their hands on a devkit.

maccard 5y ago

There's an element of truth in that, but also there's the fact that as a developer, if you have to choose between a) shipping on a new console with a smaller install base, b) shipping on an old console with an established user base, c) shipping on 2 platforms at once Then option (c) is only possible if you reduce the game to the lowest common denominator(with option option (a) becomes more appealing 2-3 years after the fact). Nowadays the difference is less significantbetween PS4 and PS5 (or Xbox One and Xbox Series), but it's still a non-trivial amount to maintain; it would have been vastly more difficult with orders of magnitude in performance (between a PS2 and a PS3), or different programming paradigms (PS3 cell vs PS4 x86).

mywittyname 5y ago

This wasn't unusual sentiment for the time. Historically, consoles had a stark difference in quality between the initial batch of games for any system, and the last AAA titles for it. Compare Super Mario to Super Mario 3 on the NES. Or Donkey Kong Country vs Super Mario World on the SNES. Or LoK: Soul Reaver to Tomb Raider 1 on the PS1. Some of the later PS3 games still look incredible. The biggest graphics limitation is resolution.

Grazester 5y ago
And some of those games on the PS3 ran at 20 fps. Hitting 30 when nothing was happening on screen.