6 ms·

I have a weird problem with the article. It does start with a question over 'infamous' qualifier, but it goes into something deeper that has been bothering me o

I have a weird problem with the article. It does start with a question over 'infamous' qualifier, but it goes into something deeper that has been bothering me over the past few years. Lets start from the end, game consoles these days are basically optimized PCs. They are effectively nothing like the first, second, or even third generation consoles that had fairly unique hardware, desirable exclusives and so on. Cell may have been difficult to program well for, but it speaks volumes about the current state of consoles that devs worry about being able to be lazy with ports. The idiot consumer will buy whatever anyway. The side effect of the first generations' relatively unique hardware profile is that games actually had to be optimized and tailored to the hardware. No lazy ports ( I still get pissy sometimes over ps3 dragon age port ). Exclusives had to be good or at least showcase what the console could do. So is that what makes Cell infamous? The thing made news when could be run in a cluster[1]. I have a different take. Cell is the remnant of the consoles, when they were still worth one's time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster

MBCook 2y ago
The article gives the answer. It’s not about being lazy with ports. It’s that the asset budgets are so large that making games is way too expensive. For any normal company you basically _have_ to launch on multiple systems if you want a financial payback. And every time graphics get better the problem gets worse. More models, more textures, more detail, more everything. $$$ Unless you have a monster hit (Zelda, Last of Us) you may be unable to make your money back on one machine. Even if you could, why not just make more money by adding in the other machines? There’s a reason pretty much only 1st party studios do exclusives.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  If there is one thing that Steam has proven, it is that games absolutely do not have to focus on 8k assets, celebrity likeness and voices. In other words, that is not really an answer. Or at least not a real answer. It is, at best, a part of it that glosses over why people play games.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Not once ever have I purchased a game because of a character's voice and looks. In fact, most of the time, I'm skipping the "I wanted to be a director, instead I make games" cut scenes. Does spending money on that actually increase sales for games? I get having great looking assets, but voices?
    - Pet_Ant 2y ago
      I’ve never understood people who enjoy the Diablo end-game but I love playing the games through for the story, vibe, and lore. The voice acting definitely contributes. The voice of Deckard Cain is instantly recognizable to me.
      - pezezin 2y ago
        "Hello my friend, stay awhile and listen!" has to be one of the more iconic phrases in gaming history...
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      I think it's largely about the marketing aspect. Imagine creating marketing for Crusader Kings 2, Mount and Blade, Terraria, and the countless other games which sold a zillion copies and are unbelievably fun, but just look pretty bland on the surface. With high end voice acting, lots of cut scenes, and so on - all of the marketing basically writes itself. You have your actory voice intro the game, set the stage of the plot, show some brief segments of critical moments in cut scenes, and then occasionally intersperse a half second or so of actual gameplay. No idea why this gets some people fired up, but it seems to work reliably enough. I suppose it's just targeting a demographic that isn't you nor I!
      - MBCook 2y ago
        I don’t know that it’s that it makes marketing easier because the clips/etc already exist. I suspect they often just don’t know how to market it without shiny screenshots. Indies don’t have this problem. But no big companies seem to be able to not spend a ton on graphics.
MisterTea 2y ago
To me the infamy is owed to Sony's "super computer on a chip" hype marketing (similar to the hype around the Emotion Engine int he PS2) surrounding the architecture coupled with the difficulty in programming it. The big issue was SPE's had no way to access main memory so you had to copy the data from RAM into each SPE which had its own local memory.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  They did a similar marketing push when the PS2 was developed, saying it couldn't be exported to certain countries due to dual-use restrictions because it was "too powerful"
  - pezezin 2y ago
    I remember that, and also how it was called the Emotion Engine because it would allow the creation of virtual characters with real emotions, which to my 15-year-old self sounded like a big load of BS.
ProfessorLayton 2y ago
While I too miss exotic hardware (N64 being my all-time favorite), ultimately what people want to play is great games and the hardware is just a means to an end. The bigger issue with current consoles imo, specifically the PS5 and XB, is their input homogenization and stagnation. Consoles have historically been forward-looking via their controllers to enable new ways to play games: [NOT including optional accessories, only out of the box abilities] - N64: Analog controls, 4 controller ports, controller expansion ports - PS1: Dual analog controls - PS2: Pressure-sensitive buttons, built-in rumble - Dreamcast: ... - Xbox: ... - Gamecube: ... - Wii: Motion controls - PS3: ... - Wii U: Gamepad screen - 360: ... - PS4: [Correction!] Touchpad - Switch: Detachable and sharable controllers - XB1: Kinnect - PS5: ... - XB1X: ... I'm definitely not implying that every new input type was successful (See Wii U, kinnect), but consoles up until about PS3/360 had something new to offer regarding ways to experience games. This has all but stopped, with Nintendo being the only one to consistently introduce new ways to play that cannot easily be replicated on a PC. Plugging a PS5/Xbox controller into a PC yields the same or better experience as buying a dedicated console these days, so why buy the console at all?
- dfxm12 2y ago
  why buy the console at all? Putting console exclusives aside, I can build a PC that does everything I need it to do but play some new games + a console for less than it costs to build & maintain a "gaming rig". Also, my PS4 is still working after ~10yrs. I would have to upgrade my PC more frequently than that to keep up with new games. You're also forgetting the two-point capacitive touch pad on the PS4 controller. It's OK, almost all the video game developers did too.
  - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    >It's OK, almost all the video game developers did too. Haha, good catch, corrected!
- DuckConference 2y ago
  PS5 controller replaced rumble with fancy haptics and force feedback on the triggers
pezezin 2y ago
> They are effectively nothing like the first, second, or even third generation consoles that had fairly unique hardware, desirable exclusives and so on. I am not sure how you are counting them, but the second generation were the Atari 2600 and its peers, and the third generation were the NES and the Master System. Consoles had unique hardware until the 7th generation (PS3 and X360).
lomase 2y ago
Calling developers lazy is the pinacle of not understanding how project managment works.

MBCook 2y ago

The article gives the answer. It’s not about being lazy with ports. It’s that the asset budgets are so large that making games is way too expensive. For any normal company you basically _have_ to launch on multiple systems if you want a financial payback. And every time graphics get better the problem gets worse. More models, more textures, more detail, more everything. $$$ Unless you have a monster hit (Zelda, Last of Us) you may be unable to make your money back on one machine. Even if you could, why not just make more money by adding in the other machines? There’s a reason pretty much only 1st party studios do exclusives.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
If there is one thing that Steam has proven, it is that games absolutely do not have to focus on 8k assets, celebrity likeness and voices. In other words, that is not really an answer. Or at least not a real answer. It is, at best, a part of it that glosses over why people play games.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Not once ever have I purchased a game because of a character's voice and looks. In fact, most of the time, I'm skipping the "I wanted to be a director, instead I make games" cut scenes. Does spending money on that actually increase sales for games? I get having great looking assets, but voices?
  - Pet_Ant 2y ago
    I’ve never understood people who enjoy the Diablo end-game but I love playing the games through for the story, vibe, and lore. The voice acting definitely contributes. The voice of Deckard Cain is instantly recognizable to me.
    - pezezin 2y ago
      "Hello my friend, stay awhile and listen!" has to be one of the more iconic phrases in gaming history...
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I think it's largely about the marketing aspect. Imagine creating marketing for Crusader Kings 2, Mount and Blade, Terraria, and the countless other games which sold a zillion copies and are unbelievably fun, but just look pretty bland on the surface. With high end voice acting, lots of cut scenes, and so on - all of the marketing basically writes itself. You have your actory voice intro the game, set the stage of the plot, show some brief segments of critical moments in cut scenes, and then occasionally intersperse a half second or so of actual gameplay. No idea why this gets some people fired up, but it seems to work reliably enough. I suppose it's just targeting a demographic that isn't you nor I!
    - MBCook 2y ago
      I don’t know that it’s that it makes marketing easier because the clips/etc already exist. I suspect they often just don’t know how to market it without shiny screenshots. Indies don’t have this problem. But no big companies seem to be able to not spend a ton on graphics.

MisterTea 2y ago

To me the infamy is owed to Sony's "super computer on a chip" hype marketing (similar to the hype around the Emotion Engine int he PS2) surrounding the architecture coupled with the difficulty in programming it. The big issue was SPE's had no way to access main memory so you had to copy the data from RAM into each SPE which had its own local memory.

mrguyorama 2y ago
They did a similar marketing push when the PS2 was developed, saying it couldn't be exported to certain countries due to dual-use restrictions because it was "too powerful"
- pezezin 2y ago
  I remember that, and also how it was called the Emotion Engine because it would allow the creation of virtual characters with real emotions, which to my 15-year-old self sounded like a big load of BS.

ProfessorLayton 2y ago

While I too miss exotic hardware (N64 being my all-time favorite), ultimately what people want to play is great games and the hardware is just a means to an end. The bigger issue with current consoles imo, specifically the PS5 and XB, is their input homogenization and stagnation. Consoles have historically been forward-looking via their controllers to enable new ways to play games: [NOT including optional accessories, only out of the box abilities] - N64: Analog controls, 4 controller ports, controller expansion ports - PS1: Dual analog controls - PS2: Pressure-sensitive buttons, built-in rumble - Dreamcast: ... - Xbox: ... - Gamecube: ... - Wii: Motion controls - PS3: ... - Wii U: Gamepad screen - 360: ... - PS4: [Correction!] Touchpad - Switch: Detachable and sharable controllers - XB1: Kinnect - PS5: ... - XB1X: ... I'm definitely not implying that every new input type was successful (See Wii U, kinnect), but consoles up until about PS3/360 had something new to offer regarding ways to experience games. This has all but stopped, with Nintendo being the only one to consistently introduce new ways to play that cannot easily be replicated on a PC. Plugging a PS5/Xbox controller into a PC yields the same or better experience as buying a dedicated console these days, so why buy the console at all?

dfxm12 2y ago
why buy the console at all? Putting console exclusives aside, I can build a PC that does everything I need it to do but play some new games + a console for less than it costs to build & maintain a "gaming rig". Also, my PS4 is still working after ~10yrs. I would have to upgrade my PC more frequently than that to keep up with new games. You're also forgetting the two-point capacitive touch pad on the PS4 controller. It's OK, almost all the video game developers did too.
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  >It's OK, almost all the video game developers did too. Haha, good catch, corrected!
DuckConference 2y ago
PS5 controller replaced rumble with fancy haptics and force feedback on the triggers

pezezin 2y ago

> They are effectively nothing like the first, second, or even third generation consoles that had fairly unique hardware, desirable exclusives and so on. I am not sure how you are counting them, but the second generation were the Atari 2600 and its peers, and the third generation were the NES and the Master System. Consoles had unique hardware until the 7th generation (PS3 and X360).

lomase 2y ago

Calling developers lazy is the pinacle of not understanding how project managment works.