Sony's Warhawk server farm is made of PS3s

The cell processor is much better suited to working in a server than a games console.

The cell processor is much better suited to working in a server than a games console.

Yep, agreed. hey have a lot of parallel floating point power that is being wasted on the gaming side.
Sony had do something with all the old PS3's lyin around. Makes sense to throw em to gether and add to PR by putting this out to the public.

On the flip side, I agree that this is a positive step forward in console gaming. Replying to the guy below talking about Counter-Strike servers, your'e right on. I think they should open this type of deal up to the public as well though.

For instance, MS should allow free downloadable server versions of games to the HD on XBL. You wouldnt require a Gold account, just a free one to get the file.

The game could drive revenue by allowing customized ad based server messages, and would benefit gamers by allowing for higher bandwidth, localized connections.

To all those who will start talking about Xbox 360's as servers dying, the .NET framework is cross compatible on Xbox 360 and Windows platforms, so this could work with PC's as well.

Sony can do the same exact thing, as opposed to hosting their own server farm, and it would be just as effective.

Enter all thos familiar old, snide anti-PS3 cliches
"The PS3 hardware is not good for gaming"
Which is why Killzone 2, MGS4, Warhawk and Ratchet, for instance, play and look much better than most 360 games. Of course the PS3 is also FAR superior for server like applications as well, put 70-odd 360s in close proximity and run them nonstop, BOOM.

"I am sure they count these towards sales, hey, its not selling after all isnt it?"
Take out the 360 sales in 2006 when it had no competition, and the PS3, despite a higher price and a one-year handicap in games, has sold MORE worldwide!

"Hey, they finally found a use for these, after all it has no games!"
Check out any PS3 game, and the only comment from xbots is "does it look better than Gears?" Because 20 months after the 360's launch, thats the ONLY AAA game out on that console. Check out the PS3's lineup 20 months after launch - no comparison.

> The PS3 hardware is not good for gaming

Well, OK. Software Developer is speaking.

Cell is great for every application you can code for it.

[ I hope you already see the catch in the phrase above. ]

It is not problem is Cell - but 90% human problem that we cannot think in parallel. Humans are sequential or as programmers are calling it "single-threaded". Cell has clean "multi-threaded" design what makes modern cheap programmers pretty much useless.

Cell is "better for server" because applications running on servers are changing rarely and have very long life cycle, when they can be debugged and optimized. With games this is pretty much reversed: everything changes every 2-4 years now. Programmers (which are normal human being most of the time) just can't keep up changing their way of unnatural thinking that fast.

Cell looks to me the same as Intel's IA64 (a.k.a. Itanic). Itanic also tried to move execution optimization problem out of CPU to compiler (by providing explicitly 1/2/3 execution threads/instruction slots). Once the problem was moved elsewhere, Intel had found that nobody cared about the problem and was still expecting Intel to take care of it.

Same happening now with PS3. If Sony would be open enough to listening and optimizing their SDK to needs of modern programmers (*not* needs of games - needs of programmers!!!), then in couple of years the situation would be OK. If not then ... "Sayonara PS3, we barely knew you".

This just shows that Sony has produced the superior machine. It has so much power that it can be used in applications the 360 could never be.

This is proof that if the developers this generation get of their arses we could have some truly astonishing games.

There have been some very good 360 games, but nothing radcally superior to an xbox with a better graphics card and processor. If they can make use of the power for advanced physics and AI we will be laughing.

Rock on Sony and MS. Go die Nintendo.

you fanboys make me feel like puking,

shut the hell up all ready and have fun playing video games, it doesnt fucking matter what console is best, cause everyone likes diffrent shit.

The thing is, they have to be using modified PS3s. I cannot, in any circumstance, see even a super effecient linux 64-bit pc running a server with only 512 mb of ram.

Not to mention 150 mb of that is already used for PS3's OS.

I'm pretty sure the GFX no longer uses RAM when the server is used, but still, that's only 250 mb extra.

The cell is great, but not superior to Microsoft's box. The cell is being advertised as a bag of chips and special sauce all in one for 1.99. Not quite true. A) expenses. Of course it's going to be 'stronger' it costs more than double what the 360 costs to make. The thing is, dollar for performance, the PS3 really sucks in any application that is video-heavy. Take games. Notice how, for graphics, everyone prefers the 360? More available ram + an easier to work with, more efficient sdk for developers to use means not only is RAM optimized faster than PS3, but that everything else is optimized! The Cell is great, but it is NOT a teraflop supercomputer all it's own. RSX is GREAT but is outperformed by Xenos and a 7800/X1800.

The fact that Cell is based on something 'like' itanium is all the worse. 6 threads on PS all on one cpu = not so good. Take SUN's new chip, for example. More powerful than anything ever because it does 1000 threads on a single chip. Problem? SUN's chip runs at 1.8 GHz and is single-core, for a max of 4 cores per rack. Perhaps only 1 per rack.

You see, PS will have it's 'unique' games, and Xbox will have its PC games. Xbox = cheaper PC. PS3 = overpriced Wii with better graphics than wii. Of course it can run superfly physics and sound and AI. But apparently it can't, and isn't catching up to the pace 360 devs have optimized their box.

Not to mention the fact that killzone's 'physics' are canned and no better than Stranglehold's when you look at them, + longer dev cycle and optimization of Open gl 2.0, + what I stated above puts PS3 in third place, behind 360 and pc.

The reason PS3s are used as servers should be self-evident. It means not having to develop and maintain two versions of the server code - one for PS3 hosted gameplay and one for some other system such as Linux. The official servers are probably running the exact same cost as the unofficial servers. Perhaps the only difference is some additional metrics & diagnostics to aid the official servers stay up.

It's probably cheaper too since rack mounted servers cost a pile of money so using PS3s probably works out to be fairly cost efficient.

Well the Cell processor was designed for more than use in just the PS3. The medical imaging computer they use the Cell in operates 30 times faster than the original high-end computer designed for it. The Cell wasn't a short-sighted thing, it's been developed to be a replacement in the work place abroad all companies. Usually the processor world is full of the same designs that have been around for at least 5-8 years. Give sony some credit where it's due, they helped further processor development with lots and lots of money.

The thing is, THAT cell isn't in the PS3 :P.

IC what you mean though. Yea, the architecture is awesome. The one in the PS3? Not so good.

The one used in medical imaging and such are the best of the best on the wafers. All 8 SPUs (the the PS3-s 5-6), 6-7GHz clocked (to the PS3's 2.8GHz).

Now, if they had stuck the best of the best in the PS3 I'd see it beating the 360, but then that means that people die because the best of the best were used in games instead of medicine xD.

lol reminds me of the W.O.P.R.

also the ps3 is like a cheap computer if you dont get the hard drive with it, so this is a decent idea

Yeah, they also mark them down as Blu-ray sales.

Uh, no they don't Zeus. Infact sony barely even comments on blu-ray sales. The people that actually do comment is the blu-ray association. Which sony is a member of but does not speak on the behalf of and does not provide information too. You'd have to be a freaking 9 year old to think sony counts those as blu-ray sales. Or at least a fanboy/troll...

@ Jitty
you're such a dumbass dude. that guy was obviously being sarcastic, just like the guy before him. it's amazing how fanboys become experts on how "their" company handles everything from tech specs to public relations to sales figures when their console "integrity" is questioned. i hate you...

BIGGEN

Please, you think he's being sarcastic. Look on the second page. Look what the guy said in a response of using a single HDD for all the PS3's:

"No, each one is a different "server." Very inefficient, I know, but thats one way of boosting PS3 and Blu-ray sales."

I doubt he's being sarcastic. And if he was, he would have told me himself. Are you his older brother or something?

Also BIGGEN, I never commented on the tech specs and knowing what I said about the BDA is common knowledge if you keep up on the HD format wars. Whats truly is amazing is when people take something that has almost no negatives about it and spin into sounding bad for sony...

You hate me? You don't even freaking know me. You've read one comment on blog from me and you "hate" me? And I'm the dumbass? LOL

Guess someone has to buy those things! :D

It came from Sony's own blog.

every? clearly you must be very unlucky because ps3 are FAR more reliable than 360s. they may not have great software, but their hardware is far more stable and reliable than the ticketing time bombs the 360s have turned out to be.

I think you're thinking of Warhawk itself locking up. And that was solved towards the end of the beta. Trust me, I've played every day the beta was up. I've been fiending for it since the beta ended. Towards the end of the beta, freezes were practically nonexistant. And since Warhawk is the only game to experience freeze, I have a feeling you're confusing a single game for the entire platform. If you have, indeed, seen this issue instead of reading it on a message board and using your poor education to misinterpret the data put forth.

What a load of propoganda. I've had one lockup in the past 6 months of my PS3, and I have been running it non-stop since I got it. 320 work units in Folding@home so far. Has your 360 been on pushing it's processor to full potential for 2560 hours lately and gaming at all other times?

Are you joking? Halo 3 is one of the worst-looking games on the Xbox 360, especially compared to other FPS games. I mean, just look at Call of Duty 4, for god's sake. Or BioShock. Or ANYTHING. Compared to those other games, Halo 3 looks like a Wii game.

Too bad you haven't actually seen the campaign mode running. If you say you have, you're a damned liar. To quote pretty much every publication who has seen it running - "gorgeous."

Kev:

Have you been in a cave the last couple of months? The Halo 3 trailer for the single player campaign was just released during E3. You can go into the Xbox Live Marketplace and download it right now, in HD.

Still planning on calling me a liar, Mr. Smarty Pants?

@ilyag.

Wow that is the dumbest shit I've ever read from the hands a fanboy. congratulations for being Joystiq's own retard of the day.

Who cares what Halo 3 looks like... Only the people who say it looks like crap. The rest of us are chomping at the bit to actually PLAY it.

AND it looks damn good. I guess, in the end, people see what they want to see.

Since they're already selling them at a loss, wouldn't that mean they would lose even MORE money on these?

Of course, they're probably not off-the-shelf PS3's, my bet is that they are stripped down to some extent (why the hell would one of those need an HDMI port or WiFi?), but it certainly makes sense to use them as a server, that way no device that isn't a PS3 is really responsible for handling the signal (just the players DNS and routers, but they don't do anything to the transmission)

This has got to be one of the stupidest comments I have read in a while.

Your telling me that it's better to pay $50 a year for ads on your TV and the right to play on servers running off other peoples 360's than to have the company setup dedicated servers out of their own pocket!?

How much more direct can it possibly get than funding a games online when you actually buy that specific game?

No. I'm saying, from a business standpoint, it's better to have consumers pay a $50 subscription to cover online service costs, than to skim $7~$10 off the revenue of every game disk that's sold! What happens when that $7 runs out? With the suibcription model, the servers can continue running as long as people still play the game and pay the subscription. Plus, PS3 and 360 games sell for the same price, but publishers make more money off each 360 game disk sold than each PS3 disk sold, so which platform do you think 3rd party publishers will favor for multi-player games?

"That up-front cost, factored into the price of a game, has to cover the expense of all your online play, plus the online play of whoever buys your used game disk after you trade it into EB"

What a fucking fanboy

Ok from a business point of view:

Your assuming $7-10 per game goes to online. That seems extremely high to me. Personally I really doubt server farms for online play were factored into the development cost of the game but if they were it would be a few cents at the most.

Lets assume your right though and some of that cost would come out of the publishers pocket. How is supporting a very healthy online experience a negative for the publisher? It actually promotes game sales. Look at the online community for Resistance, it's doing very well and I'm sure it's a an impact on that games sales.

How many games on the 360 have dedicated servers provided for them?

This is the way PC gaming has worked for years. If a game sells well then it can easily make back the cost of the servers and the cost to run them. Don't forget expansion packs either. Think about how many PS3 owners will probably download this game off of PSN at $39.99, yah I'm pretty sure 80%. Because it's an easy buy.

In your comment you make it seem like game company's don't make money on a game.

Also remember that this is purely an online game. That means that there are no voice actors to pay, no motion capture, no writers, just purely an online Francaise. Think of this game as more along the lines of Battlefield, which EA probably makes a good killing off of otherwise they wouldn't continue to make them. All the extra costs that come form a single player game are put into mutliplayer. As well, because they don't need to have servers for EVERY game because people will run their own servers that takes away from the cost.

looks like your bridge is unguarded today huh phattie...all those goats not paying a toll..could of saved up for a copy of lair

If MS had a 360 farm, working in there would be like sitting in hell. Red lights! Intense Heat! Satan?

Don't claim him a troll young poster! He speaketh teh truth!

Why would they shutdown? More reliable than 360s. Obviously you have never seen MIT's and Stanford's PS3 cluster they built.

If the 360 even attempted this, it would be a firestorm. This was probably a wiser choice than IBM Cell Blade Servers which cost 18k. Terrasoft Solutions sell 32 PS3 and their own SDK for 6k, to be used as server clusters.

Hurray for einsof and his silly fanboy response.

Seriously this is a good question,some servers have been shut down for the last couple of months IMO Sony should offer a response to "how long are these servers going to operate?" or "How long is Sony planning to keep these servers running?".