EA exec: 360 has already been 'maxed out'

Duh, I don'ts know technologee....mmmm, duh...little people paint pictures on the screen....duhhhrrrr.

McElroy, he's saying that they can do more in games than the box is able to do, they've "maxed it out". How hard is that to understand? Miyamoto said the same about Wii.

Duhhhrrrrr.....me like fudgeicles.....yummmmm

It's certainly maxed out in the creativity and innovation departments.

To be fair, I think creativity and innovation were maxed out as soon as this generation arrived.

Now they'll actually have to focus on gameplay.

If the 360 is maxed out, then so is the PS3. I don't see what else they could squeeze out of a GeForce 7800

Crytek says the ps3 is maxed out, Id believe crytek over some european EA Exec.

Doesn't the camera contain a graphics card though? Doesn't Natal reinforce the fact the the 360 is maxed out? To be able to do more with it you need to add new hardware?

Not that I think the 360 is maxed out, but I don't think Natal is a good example to prove that.

Natal runs off a peripheral add-on, not the standing 360 hardware.

Obviously the addon just adds a new better camera and mic. But the most of the processing of Natal is done using the 360 hardware. Its called post-processing.

pkilla: "Its called post-processing."

Nope. Natal has it own custom, on-board processor:

http://xbox.about.com/od/news/a/natalfactsheet.htm

Nice try though.

Much like the Saturn, the PS3's extra power is just that much harder to tap into. Plus the fact that the power differential between the two is small enough that it could be debatable in any case, especially given variables such as graphical trickery and art style

@gordo

I read the article and it doesn't say that all tasks are done on the "on board processor". The custom processor may process some of the initial sensor data. But I think that a lot of the major tasks are done by the 360.

For example do you think that the Wii could run Natal, if you just attach the camera to it? I doubt it.

@pkilla

Uh, I agree. The Wii absolutely couldn't run Natal.
Now that we're off-subject: hooking a Wii sensor bar up to a XBOX 360 is also dumb, and shoving ATM cards in a PS3 will get you nowhere.

@pkilla:

"Custom processor (running Microsoft proprietary software layer). A proprietary software layer makes the magic of “Project Natal” possible. This layer differentiates “Project Natal” from any other technology on the market through its ability to enable human body recognition and extract other visual noise."

Someone didn't get a gold star in reading class today. It's a custom processor running Microsoft proprietary software.

Uncharted is a great example. That that game looks so good, and does it all with no loading times is a great example of the potential power of the PS3.

I don't get the deal with Killzone 2 though. What are these great graphics that everyone is talking about? If people didn't tell me ahead of time that it was supposed to have great graphics, I wouldn't have even given them a second look. And in giving them a second look, I don't see anything particularly special about them to differentiate them from most other FPS games out there at all.

that's the same with any generation. i'd believe the 360 is pretty close to maxed out in power, but developers will continue to learn new little tricks to make their code more efficient and eek out every last bit of performance.

But, how could they have maxed out their ability to push the 360, yet not maxed out their abilities on the PS3...which devs across the board say is more difficult to program.

Just saying...there's holes in that there logic.

Troy: the logic is there. 360 is more traditional to program for. Since it's pretty much a PC, devs know when it's maxed out. The PS3's wacky architecture means devs don't immediately know how to get the most out of the system. Traditional programming relies heavily on the graphics card, which is less powerful in the PS3, which is why most multiplatform games have a tiny edge on the 360 (AA on Mirror's Edge 360 for ex).

When devs start utilizing the cell to take some of the stress off of the graphics card, we will start to see better things come out of it. Killzone is a good example, but performance falls because they haven't perfected it yet. Uncharted is a great example actually. First game looks great, second game raises the bar. There's still room left there.

Good point Levi. If the dev takes the time to learn about the PS3, then Killzone 2 happens.

Then again they could just say fuck it like Valve:

"The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward. We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform. [...] I didn't come into this business in the 90s because of some technical fetish. I came in because I wanted to give people experiences that made them have fun."

Well that's just terrific Tom Leonard. Way to alienate 23 million people!

What I'm saying is, rruss79's statement is made of faulty logic. He's implying that EA is saying the 360 is maxed out because EA has, in fact, maxed out their own abilities with the 360. In other words, he thinks the 360 still has more to offer, but EA is incapable of reaching it due to their own incompetence. But, if that was the case, you would expect them to make such a statment about the PS3 LONG before they'd make it about the 360, due to the PS3's more complicated architecture.

Well, if they're ALSO claiming a 10 year life-cycle...yeah, heaven forbid.

Yeah I think most of you take the meaning of this outa context. Maxing out the hardware means" we are trying to doing things that we could realistically do with our games if not for specific hardware limitations". That does not mean developers wont continue to push that boundary incrementally forward through further optimizations but regardless the ceiling is in sight. Booo Whoo Its not like MS doesnt have their next peice of hardware coming in the next cpuple years or anything =)

@Troy:

Whose 10-year life cycle are we talking about here? "Maxing out the hardware" has no impact on the marketability of a product for that span of time. Look at the PS2 -- that's the type of life cycle that both companies are intending. It doesn't mean they won't release new hardware.

Also, just to clarify, "maxing out the hardware" is a GOOD thing. Basically, it just means that all the hardware units are working at maximum potential; no significant bottlenecks are holding back the potential of certain underutilized hardware components.

What this does NOT mean is that we won't be seeing better games. Coding optimizations can always allow for more efficient use of hardware, regardless of whether the hardware is working harder or not. Some of the best games come out late in a console's life cycle, well after the hardware has been "maxed out".

Basically, this EA VP is reiterating what most developers will probably tell you -- the PS3 is a foreign architecture that is hard to code for, and this difficulty prevents the system from being used to its maximum potential.

Swift isn't a gnome, he's a mother fucking fox, and not like the kinda fox your mom is, either.

Anyway, thanks for bringing up all the shit I love McMurderoy. And here I thought it was Artie, the strongest man in the world, keeping the 360s going.

"Anyway, like Carmack said, PS3 is more powerful, but only in the ideal sense if you perfect-program for it, which nobody does, because it's a waste of time in relation to money."

I think that's exactly the point he's trying to make. Over time, you develop tips and tricks to pull a little more out of the machine you're developing for. But, with the 360 being pretty much the exact same architecture they've been working on with the previous Xbox, and the PC...there ARE no new tricks. But, they've still got a lot of the PS3 architecture to unlock.

Put it like this, the (multiplat) games coming out on both systems are pretty much identical, and devs are still trying to get a hold on PS3 development. They've figured out the 360 backwards and forwards.

At least, that's what I got from it.

Well I think the real problem coming from this is that for most publishers to survive they have to go multiplatform with their HD AAA titles to justify the development costs. So, why try to unlock more power in the PS3 if its just going to require even more time to develop that version over keeping architectures like Capcom has that makes it easier for them to go between systems? Might as well keep them looking the same instead of branching them off and increasing the development costs even more than what they are now.

I said this months (perhaps over a year) ago. I think, eventually, 3rd party devs are going to have to make a decision. Either have the PS3 version of their games be superior to the 360 version, or have both versions remain the same, yet vastly inferior to games coming from Sony's 1st party studios.

Call it what you want, but statements like this one from EA and the one from the Valve guy saying the PS3's architecture is too complicated only back me up on that position.

And MS is claiming that the 360 is also going to have a 10 year life span. Something has to give.

"And MS is claiming that the 360 is also going to have a 10 year life span. Something has to give."

Are you suggesting it won't because its hardware isn't as powerful as the PS3? The PS2 was weaker than the Gamecube and Xbox both, and look at it staying strong while the other two are long gone.

No, I definitely think the 360 can stick around for 10 years. Hell, it can hang around for 20 years. But, for how long will it's titles continue to improve and grow. That's the issue. Sure, the PS2 is still around. But, how many PS2 titles have really raised the bar since GoW2?

"Either have the PS3 version of their games be superior to the 360 version, or have both versions remain the same, yet vastly inferior to games coming from Sony's 1st party studios."


Now, this is directed at many more people than just you, but:

You're a complete idiot if you seriously think a bit more computing performance is going to make some games "vastly inferior" to others. There are games made ten years ago that make many games today seem "vastly inferior". And that's on hardware that's exponentially more powerful. Do you seriously think a computing performance difference of a few percent that some developers might be able to squeeze out, is going to matter fuck all?

Number crunching has barely -anything- to do with what makes a good game, and the sooner idiot gamers will get this through their thick skulls, the better off the industry will be.

PS3 games will always be at the mercy of the 360's hardware since the developers goal is to make multi-platform games work the same way. You might see small differences here or there in the future, but nothing major.

Oh, boy, oh boy! THIS is what I've been waiting for!!!

So, lets hear some of these MANY 10 year old games that make todays games seem vastly inferior. I'd love to play some of them.

Sure there are non-technological elements to a game (ie. story, character development) that contribute to how good a game is, but I'd wager that VIDEO games are still mainly judged on the technical aspects (graphics, sounds, gameplay, replay value, etc). Chances are, in the year 2009 you're not going to want to bother with a game even if it has a SPECTACULAR storyline, if it comes along with 8-bit graphics. You're better off reading the book.

And, I don't think we're talking about a "bit" more computing performance. I think we're talking about a LOT more computing performance. I think if the difference is only a "bit" more, Soderlund wouldn't have bothered to make this statement. And this isn't the first time we've heard this. When you have entire studios (Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Valve) saying, "It's just too complicated. We're not going to even bother!" that kinda indicates there's a LOT locked up in there waiting to be taken advantage of. And we've still got, what, 6 or 7 years to go. That gap is only going to widen. If the 360 plateaus now, and the PS3 plateaus 2 years from now, yes, I think we will see a VAST difference in game quality, at least in the technical areas. And when you're talking about multiplat games, the only difference from console to console are the technical differences.

"Number crunching has barely -anything- to do with what makes a good game,"

Seriously?!!? Sure, again, we all want to say it's all about the story, and the non-technical aspects, but if that were true, we'd be playing D&D, not consoles. The fact of the matter is that VIDEO games are 70-90% technical aspects, thus NUMBER CRUNCHING. If that were not the case, we wouldn't need new generations of consoles. We'd just have better and better games on the same old consoles. Graphics, online multiplayer, fantastic explosions, great party system, hundreds of enemies on-screen at a time, incredible AI, class systems, collisioin detection, hours of gameplay...ALL of that stuff is number crunching. What percentage of a games quality would you speculate is NOT number crunching?

@ tmacairjordan87

sorry, but he is pretty much correct. Processor power and computation alone isn't what projects us forward in technology. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be.

Videocard features and programming techniques (that rely on videocard features) are really what allow the next level of techniques to come forward. You're vastly oversimplifying it.

Offloading certain responsibilities from the videocard to an SPU will free up the videocard to do certain extra things, but these differences will not be night and day.

The xbox was far more superior over the ps2 than the ps3 is over the 360... and last gen we didn't see just a gigantic difference in most games from one console to another (most that did we just lazy ports, etc). Overall you'll see the same thing this gen.

Ooops. That was for Troy Powers, not tmacairjordan87.

Sorry.

troy powers is exactly what is wrong with the games industry, and he should go out and get eaten by wild bears.

My girlfriend told me recently that David the Gnome died at the end of the series. I never saw that episode and I was heartbroken by the news.

Maya the Bee, on the other hand, lives forever!

HE DIED!?!?!

*cries*

As far as I remember, he died of old age. And in the end it showed him and Lisa dancing among the branches of trees in the afterlife or something, it's been too long, I can only vaguely remember. If you know that series, you'd know they wouldn't just kill him off just like that. :P