One would figure that creating a positive environment for game developers to work inside would lead to the best results, but Sony appears to be thinking counter to the logic.
In an interview with the Official PlayStation Magazine, and transcribed by Eurogamer, SCEI head Kazuo Hirai said that the PlayStation 3 was intentionally designed to be a difficult platform for developers to work on. Wait, what?
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
He added, "So it's a kind of - I wouldn't say a double-edged sword - but it's hard to program for, and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."
Interestingly enough, the original PlayStation had a reputation for being relatively easy for programmers to get their concepts running, especially at a time when the games industry was moving from 2D to 3D. The PlayStation 2, on the other hand, was a difficult platform to work with, especially when compared to the Dreamcast, GameCube and Xbox.
Hirai does point out that having a difficult platform does allow the user to see some real growth over the lifespan of the console. The original launch games for PlayStation 2 look pathetic when put up against ones made during the console’s twilight moments. But is that necessarily a good thing for either developers -- who have to spend more time and resources in realizing their designs -- or for the gamer -- who has to wait years before getting just what he or she fully wanted out of the “next generation” platform?
Sony seems to be going backwards with the PS3 lately, recently claiming that the PS3 is still for early adoptors, and now the PS3 is intended to be difficult to program for. Do you think Sony took the right approach? The market sales doesn't think so. However, if you're a PS3 owner, are you happy with your system? Or do you own multiple consoles and spend more time on something other than the PS3?
If Kazuo Hirai truly believes this, then he is either incredibly stupid, or he thinks his audience is incredibly stupid (or gullible).
What you do for the rest of the nine and a half years is simply make great games - and don't waste time and resources on getting to grips with the architecture.
Or they made a system and didn't want to spend the extra to make it easy and thought nah - let them suffer, cost too much to add easy of use?
And what would we gain? Its not like the first year of great games helps any sell consoles and build a commanding market share.
I love my PS3 and stand by my choice, but I have real differences in the quality of games, presumably because of this "difficulty" in working with the system, which in turn shows up the talent (or lack therefo) of the developers.
If Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is photo-real and LittleBigPlanet looks almost tangible at 1080p, there's no reason for Smackdown vs Raw 2009 to look so amateur and last-gen, unless THQ aren't very good at working with the PS3 system.
I don't want to see improvement in my games over time, I want the best the kit can offer from the start, especially as it hampers sales so much - how many times in the early days did we see 360 fanbois screaming about how awful the PS3 was because "it looks so poor"? They were right, despite the fact the PS3 has superior hardware and design, and as a result no gamers bought the PS3.
Now, we're seeing PS3 software start to outstrip 360 software, and in another year it will leave everything in the dust, but it's all going to be too little, too late.
I own and PS3 and a good games PC and it all looks like 360 stuff to me. Very sad as we both know they can do so much more.
'And we only added the blu-ray drive to hike up the cost, because we actually hate people buying these things because we lose so much on every single one we make'
I kind of, understand what he is saying tough. Still when everybody can produce a basic level/quality easily, then the differentiating factors will score and rate the titles. So you got a average resulting game, and spend whatever you can to improve the quality further to a point where the budget is still reasonable and you as a developer is happy with the product. This is how it should have been.
As they make breakthroughs in graphics techniques etc. in the graphics field they always import these techniques to the consoles and so over the 9 year life things only get better and the development cost falls using third-party middle ware.
I say these losers (sony) need to bring back their dad Ken kuturagi and listen to his Bulls***, he knows what he's on about.
Was only looking to get a PS3 for FF13, but now that is gone multi. as well and I'm not interested in bluray so what's the point of a PS3? With the current credit uncertainty, I'd keep my cash in the pocket.
They dont want to sell shat loads of consoles. they LOOSE money on them.
they rather you feel as locked into the hardware as the poor old devs that toil for years to learn the hardware.
Then after all that effort learning. they can milk the devs with even more shtty deals selling the games.
/Smile. Sony needs to think unless it wants to keep posting losses.
Eventually Sony will realise that we can build a HTPC with blue ray drive (£57 currently for reader). So that is 1 less reason to buy a PS3.