Video Gaming Cheaper to Xbox 3 and PlayStation 4

[abboudc]

actually from a software perspective he is correct. If you can produce the same amount of instructions with less code then your development tools are more powerful.

Amount of code doesn't equate to speed or power of that code.

Ease doesn't equate to power in the same way. VB is not as powerful as C which is not as powerful as assembly.

This is because a software engineer can only produce 3 to 5 thousand lines of usable code a year. So a 100 thousand line project with 10 software engineers takes 2 to 3 years to develop. Just an FYI

Where did you get these numbers? I've easily written 3-5 thousand lines of code in a single month. By your numbers, a software developer is only capable of writing 20 lines of usable code a day. If this is all you're getting, i'd find new developers...

I'm poor I buy the 360

I've got cash I buy the PS3. So the PS3 is viewed as the superior console by gamers, but the price is what keeps people buying the 360

This is crazy talk too. I have both, and i play the 360 about 10x more, because it has more games and better games. Even the cross-platform games are better on 360 at this point (especially EA games). The only people that view the PS3 as a better gaming machine at this point are Sony and PS3 fanboys.

I like the PS3 and want it to succeed. It's capable of a lot - see MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, and i hope, God of War 3. But calling it a better game machine (today anyway) or saying the only reason people are buying the 360 is because they're poor is delusional.

 

[lsiberian]

Amount of code doesn't equate to speed or power of that code.

Ease doesn't equate to power in the same way. VB is not as powerful as C which is not as powerful as assembly.

Where did you get these numbers? I've easily written 3-5 thousand lines of code in a single month. By your numbers, a software developer is only capable of writing 20 lines of usable code a day. If this is all you're getting, i'd find new developers...

This is crazy talk too. I have both, and i play the 360 about 10x more, because it has more games and better games. Even the cross-platform games are better on 360 at this point (especially EA games). The only people that view the PS3 as a better gaming machine at this point are Sony and PS3 fanboys.

I like the PS3 and want it to succeed. It's capable of a lot - see MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, and i hope, God of War 3. But calling it a better game machine (today anyway) or saying the only reason people are buying the 360 is because they're poor is delusional.

Coding is only about 20 percent of the development process. And those numbers are straight from software engineering program.

You are dead wrong about power. Assembly isn't more powerful than C. Have you ever even coded in assembly. It takes significantly longer and is far more complex and difficult. It has absolutely no control structures. C is less powerful than VB. I can build a application much faster in VB than in C or even C++ which I programmed in for years.

If you write more code than that. That's because you are either working under a poorly organized company or you are just part of the process. The latter being most likely. Most software is built very poorly and 60 percent of software projects fail. These are hard statistics.

There is a difference between a software engineer and a coder.

 

[lsiberian]

Sony underestimated the importance of keeping game developers happy with efficient development tools. This is a huge oversight by Sony since most developers can't be bothered to spend extra resources developing for the cell (difficulty, time and most importantly equates to money). The only real good games for the PS3 are exclusive titles. The majority of 3rd party games are better on the 360. This is very important since exclusive titles and game developers, developing for a single console are becoming less frequent (Final Fantasy, cough, cough). Does Microsoft still have exclusive rights to Bungie . The best games this generation IMO was Fallout 3 and it was developed on the 360 and ported to the PS3.

Your not fully analyzing this situation.

1. Sony isn't truly a software company so they have to hire out the development tools

2. Microsoft has clearly separated itself from the pack long ago in development tools.

3. Developers have over a decade of building games for Microsoft platforms. Translating to the 360 is super easy and requires little change.

Sony didn't make an oversight. They understood that in a head to head fight they didn't stand a chance in hell. So they opted to do what they do best(Blu-ray player). The PS3 is really only successful because of the blu-ray player. Not the gaming platform.

If you are buying a system purely for games then a PS3 is a poor choice. However if you want a system that makes a great all in one package for a home theater then the PS3 is for you.

Which is exactly where you see people falling. FYI the best next gen game i've played is Gears of War. Though I haven't played Fallout 3 yet. But GoW is an awesome game. I think if you can have both then do it. Resistance has a great story line. Not nearly as good of an engine though.

 

[MinusTheBear]

Your not fully analyzing this situation.

1. Sony isn't truly a software company so they have to hire out the development tools

2. Microsoft has clearly separated itself from the pack long ago in development tools.

3. Developers have over a decade of building games for Microsoft platforms. Translating to the 360 is super easy and requires little change.

Sony could have used better dev tools that developers were accustomed too. They went with the unfamiliar more difficult and expensive route. A quote from John Carmack

"You want the developers to be in your corner, and in making a machine that is so unique, Sony seems to have limited themselves to only a select few developers who are even up to the task."

This is an oversight. Developers make the games which in turn make the console successful.

Sony didn't make an oversight. They understood that in a head to head fight they didn't stand a chance in hell. So they opted to do what they do best(Blu-ray player). The PS3 is really only successful because of the blu-ray player. Not the gaming platform.

Yes, Sony did make an oversight on the importance of game developers and efficient dev tools. The PS1 and PS2 were some of the most successful consoles in history. They both had the best developer support during their time. The main reason Sony developed the PS3 was to continue their sucess in the video game market (PS1 then PS2, hence the PS3. Blu-ray was an unkown factor at the time and Sony decided to take a risk implementing it. It payed off. Blu-ray rocks!

If you are buying a system purely for games then a PS3 is a poor choice. However if you want a system that makes a great all in one package for a home theater then the PS3 is for you.

If you are buying the system purely for games the PS3 is not a poor choice, the xbox 360 is just a better choice IMO. I totally agree that the PS3 is one of the best bang for your buck products on the market today. The value it offers is exceptional.

Which is exactly where you see people falling. FYI the best next gen game i've played is Gears of War. Though I haven't played Fallout 3 yet. But GoW is an awesome game. I think if you can have both then do it. Resistance has a great story line. Not nearly as good of an engine though.

Gears 1 & 2 were great!

Here is that article I quoted earlier. It talks a lot about the technical aspects and differences between the PS3 and Xbox 360 from one developers point of view.

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/ReclusiveSpirit/john-carmack-unplugged-xbox-360-ps3-98107.phtml

 

[emorphien]

It will be interesting to see where they go next. Whether Sony learned from the Cell processor and goes back to something a little more friendly for programmers making games. Both are pretty comparable for what I want from them: gaming, but each does offer other various extra features the other does not. It would be nice to see more of the things not built in to the Xbox 360 start being standard like the wireless adapter for example. Would also be nice to see PS3s version of the dashboard take on some of what the Xbox can do with Xbox Live a bit better. Of course I can't stand the PS3's controller so a replacement for that would be really ncie too.

Power wise? Eh, each one has it's winning points and losing points. It all comes down to which combination of CPU & GPU & memory architecture is easier to take advantage of for gaming. As time goes forward they will continue to get better with each console but the Xbox seems to have had the edge from the start, on top of the fact that it came out earlier. The Xbox has powerful hardware that is more "traditional" than the PS3 and the development tools have been better.

 

[abboudc]

Coding is only about 20 percent of the development process. And those numbers are straight from software engineering program.

You are dead wrong about power. Assembly isn't more powerful than C. Have you ever even coded in assembly. It takes significantly longer and is far more complex and difficult. It has absolutely no control structures. C is less powerful than VB. I can build a application much faster in VB than in C or even C++ which I programmed in for years.

If you write more code than that. That's because you are either working under a poorly organized company or you are just part of the process. The latter being most likely. Most software is built very poorly and 60 percent of software projects fail. These are hard statistics.

There is a difference between a software engineer and a coder.

Based on your sweeping generalizations, i'm not even sure i could convey my points to you, but here goes.

There are things you can do in C that can not be done in VB. There are things that can be done in assembly that can not be done in C. From a performance perspective on the same hardware, given optimal code, the C program could wipe the floor with the VB program, depending on what you're doing. Therein lies the power.

This computational efficiency may be insignificant in things like Microsoft Word, and it wouldn't make sense to write in a low level language given the added complexity of the code. But for things like graphics engines, where efficiently utilizing the hardware is critical, it can and does lead to a significant performance and competitive advantage.

But what do i know, i'm just part of the process

But enough about programming...this isn't Slashdot. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[emorphien]

Agreed on the above. You can write in VB which makes things easier for you, but come time to output that to something you want to run as quickly as possible and it won't perform as well as the other options. I don't write in those (have done C in the past) but I notice it with the various tools I use. Mathcad is a quick and easy way for creating and checking algorithms, but it is not good for performing many calculations quickly.

I could use IDL (similar to Matlab) and while coding it will take a fair bit more time it will run far faster. What could take 20 seconds in Mathcad could take less than a second in IDL.

To go faster than that I know some people who write some of their projects in C and Java and performance improves yet again, which is good when you're dealing with complex calculations on large images although that difference in performance in general is not as significant. Still, IDL or Matlab are most popular because they strike a good balance between performance and ease & speed of coding as well as ease of use for most people I know.

It's delusional to think that just because a programming language is easier to code in it is more powerful. Usually the exact opposite seems to be the case in terms of runtime to complete the same tasks.

 

[lsiberian]

Agreed on the above. You can write in VB which makes things easier for you, but come time to output that to something you want to run as quickly as possible and it won't perform as well as the other options. I don't write in those (have done C in the past) but I notice it with the various tools I use. Mathcad is a quick and easy way for creating and checking algorithms, but it is not good for performing many calculations quickly.

I could use IDL (similar to Matlab) and while coding it will take a fair bit more time it will run far faster. What could take 20 seconds in Mathcad could take less than a second in IDL.

To go faster than that I know some people who write some of their projects in C and Java and performance improves yet again, which is good when you're dealing with complex calculations on large images although that difference in performance in general is not as significant. Still, IDL or Matlab are most popular because they strike a good balance between performance and ease & speed of coding as well as ease of use for most people I know.

It's delusional to think that just because a programming language is easier to code in it is more powerful. Usually the exact opposite seems to be the case in terms of runtime to complete the same tasks.

To understand power is difficult, but in many applications it's much more efficient to use and OOP language. Especially commerce applications. The reasons are numerous, but generally speaking it allows you to easily implement design patterns which make life way easier and dramatically improve the efficiency of a design.

Plus if you use your compiler correctly it will factor efficient code. And considering it take considerably longer to build something in Assembly it will save you a lot of money.

One crazy thing to note is the efficiency functional language like LISP have when used properly. But programming in LISP takes practice and a very different way of thinking.

FYI you can do just about anything in C that can be done in assembly. You can even shift bits in C if you so choose. Just make sure you check your arrays very carefully.

 

[lsiberian]

Agreed on the above. You can write in VB which makes things easier for you, but come time to output that to something you want to run as quickly as possible and it won't perform as well as the other options. I don't write in those (have done C in the past) but I notice it with the various tools I use. Mathcad is a quick and easy way for creating and checking algorithms, but it is not good for performing many calculations quickly.

I could use IDL (similar to Matlab) and while coding it will take a fair bit more time it will run far faster. What could take 20 seconds in Mathcad could take less than a second in IDL.

To go faster than that I know some people who write some of their projects in C and Java and performance improves yet again, which is good when you're dealing with complex calculations on large images although that difference in performance in general is not as significant. Still, IDL or Matlab are most popular because they strike a good balance between performance and ease & speed of coding as well as ease of use for most people I know.

It's delusional to think that just because a programming language is easier to code in it is more powerful. Usually the exact opposite seems to be the case in terms of runtime to complete the same tasks.

I didn't intend this to be condescending or to make sweeping statements. I simply provided information learned in my Software Engineering program in order to aid in the understanding of the underlying issues in the debate.

To be honest I found the numbers quite low, but after doing software engineering projects. I found that the numbers held true. Of course their are numerous ways to speed up and improve a process and there are variances for each situation. But the numbers are fairly consistent with the research I have seen. These numbers are based off of a 2000 hour work year.(FYI)

One of the common metrics to measure the power of a language is by counting how many instructions it can generate per LOC. The more it generates the more powerful the langauge. In this the assumption is made that the language is used properly to it's full potential. In that case a C program would lose to a Java program. In pratice few people use a language to it's full potential. I think that's mainly because OOP design patterns are fairly new in the Software Engineering field and with time they will enjoy widespread use.