• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

PlayStation Was the PlayStation 3's Cell a failed gimmick?

M

MagiCarbo

Bob-omb
The PlayStation 3's biggest selling point at launch was the Cell Processor. Marketed as a super-computer on a chip, The Cell had six microprocessors and a main one that were designed to do numerous tasks at once. Sony bet big on Cell, hoping to make it the standard for gaming and computing that would be adopted by other machines and industries. And with their success in utilizing custom tech with the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 (CD-ROM, Emotion Engine, DVD-ROM), they expected third parties to master Cell's notoriously steep learning curve to create unique experiences and exclusives that were only possible on PS3.

But that didn't happen. The Xbox 360 launched a whole year before the PS3, and used a much simpler three core-PowerPC chip. And with that head start, most developers began next gen development on that platform instead. Sony hoped the PS3's unique hardware and features would make it THE console for third parties of the HD era, with developers making exclusives and definitive versions of games on that system. But what actually ended up happening, was that developers would make a game with Xbox 360 or PC as the lead platform, and then find some poor soul to cobble together a PlayStation 3 version... if they decided to make a PS3 version at all.

As such, the PlayStation 3 was plagued with poor third party support throughout its first few years, with most games coming either being 360/PC exclusive, arriving well after other versions, or arrived looking and running considerably worse than other versions. Things wouldn't get better until Sony started providing better tools and documentation for developers, as well as making deals for exclusive content and features in games to make the PlayStation 3 a better platform for third parties.

The PlayStation 4 would see Sony ditch Cell entirely in favor of cheaper and more familiar x86 hardware, designed to make it significantly easier for developers to bring games to it. And all those other applications Cell was pitched for? Yeah, those never materialized either. As such, the PS3 was the only Cell-based device to hit the consumer market.

So that just begs the question, Was Cell just one big gimmick? A flashy, yet impractical piece of tech designed make the PlayStation 3 special, but most developers had little patience for? It's obvious that the best looking and most technologically impressive PS3 games came from Sony themselves. The potential was there, but Sony made the same mistake Nintendo made with the Wii U. Creating something that was more-so designed to make a statement, rather than something developers and players actually wanted.
 
I mean there's no way to separate Cell from the PS3, and ultimately I don't think the PS3 was a failure. It was the console that pretty much forced Sony's hand to focus on compelling first party games, which is why their game sales are now gigantic. Was the Cell itself a failure? Probably. But it doesn't matter in retrospect and didn't even matter by the end of that generation when PS3 made a comeback, so who cares?
 
AngryAlchemist said:
I mean there's no way to separate Cell from the PS3, and ultimately I don't think the PS3 was a failure. It was the console that pretty much forced Sony's hand to focus on compelling first party games, which is why their game sales are now gigantic. Was the Cell itself a failure? Probably. But it doesn't matter in retrospect and didn't even matter by the end of that generation when PS3 made a comeback, so who cares?
Click to expand...
I think its funny how much the PS3 turned itself around while the 360 and Wii began to falter in the later half of the generation. It's almost a complete inverse of what it was like at the beginning of the generation.

The PS3 started getting groundbreaking exclusives and competent versions of multiplatform titles with the additions of Motion Controls, 3D, and others, while Microsoft was putting all its eggs into the Kinect basket, which allienated a lot of 360 users, and Nintendo ran out of ideas for the Wii too quickly, which led to stagnating sales and a conflicting image of the console with some of its best games being stuck in Japan (Operation Rainfall anyone?)
 
MagiCarbo said:
The PS3 started getting groundbreaking exclusives and competent versions of multiplatform titles with the additions of Motion Controls, 3D, and others, while Microsoft was putting all its eggs into the Kinect basket, which allienated a lot of 360 users, and Nintendo ran out of ideas for the Wii too quickly, which led to stagnating sales and a conflicting image of the console with some of its best games being stuck in Japan (Operation Rainfall anyone?)
Click to expand...
But the Operation Rainfall games all released in Europe? So not stuck in Japan
 
Not sure about the term Gimmick since it has varying definitions, but I'd definitely say the Cell Processor was a significant handicap to the PS3, one that continues to this day in how difficult it's games are to bring forward via non-cloud emulation.
 
Phoenom said:
Not sure about the term Gimmick since it has varying definitions, but I'd definitely say the Cell Processor was a significant handicap to the PS3, one that continues to this day in how difficult it's games are to bring forward via non-cloud emulation.
Click to expand...
I say gimmick since it was a heavily marketed piece of custom tech designed to create a unique experience on its platform. In Cell's case, it was billed as this quasi-supercomputer that could potentially deliver games with the most cutting edge AI, physics, sound, etc. to create new gameplay possibilities or even entirely new genres.

But a lot of that potential never really materialized for third party development because most devs would rather just start on the platform that requires the least amount of effort to get into, and then just port from there. Any interesting or cutting edge use of Cell was done by Sony's own developers.
 
0
I mean, as you say, no one adopted the Cell. And the 1-2 combo of the BD drive and Cell made the PS3 so expensive that the profits from their first 2 gens were entirely wiped out, Ken Kutaragi was forced to resign, and they only narrowly avoided last place in console sales as PS3 saw about a 50% fall in install base vs the PS2. Of course it was a failure.
 
This thread is likely going to devolve into arguing about what the definition of a gimmick is.

On the topic of the cell, I'll say that it was an impressive piece of tech that produced some amazing games but also wasn't friendly with scalability hence so many worse ps3 versions of multiplatform games. I wouldn't consider the cell a gimmick because it wasn't really the focus of the casual console marketing experience the way something like the Wii's motion controls were.
 
Cell, like PS3 as a whole, was the result of Sony's arrogance coming off the back of the PS2 crushing the competition.
They thought they could do whatever they wanted, however expensive or inconvenient, and both devs and consumers would fall in line.
While they managed to salvage their console business, they ended that generation having never made back the literal billions they lost on the PS3, and having gone from #1 by lightyears to barely scraping out of third place.
There's a reason they've used standardized hardware ever since, Cell just wasn't worth the hassle.
 
Last edited:
MagiCarbo said:
I think its funny how much the PS3 turned itself around while the 360 and Wii began to falter in the later half of the generation. It's almost a complete inverse of what it was like at the beginning of the generation.
Click to expand...


that is completely untrue for the Xbox360 in UK and US, where it experienced exactly the opposite effect (very log-lasting sales) thanks to Kinect
That said yes, PS3 had a comeback during the gen, where it started reaaaaally bad, while gainng momentum towards the end

still (for OP purposes) yest the CELL has been a failed attempt at computer-based architecture and a money-burner for Sony for years
 
Another problem that the PS3 has was the two different pools of RAM with 256MB each.

One very expensive Rambus RAM and one GDDR3 RAM made it much harder to develop for when Xbox 360 had one unified RAM pool

Ken Kutaragi got fired from PS after the Cell fiasco
 
The Cell was absolutely a failure, in the sense that it didn't do anything they were set to do with it, to the point it was immediately replaced next generation and is now a forgotten experiment.

I wouldn't say it was a gimmick, though. It was literally the CPU of the console, it being a bit out there doesn't mean it's a gimmick, or else we probably should consider all consoles making weird hardware choices also gimmicks.
 
From my understanding, it was incredibly tough to develop for. I have researched that period extensively and problems with the PS3's development environment always come up when I speak to developers. That's why you'll find most third parties from that generation used the 360 as their lead development platform.
 
Even as someone in my early teens (therefore super susceptible to video game marketing) when the PS3 was being announced and Sony was talking up the Cell Processor, I knew that, when they said “the Cell Processor in your PS3 will talk to the Cell Processor in your fridge to make your games run better” my BS meter was going off the charts.

Why would my fridge need a processor???

Anyway this huge ambition cost Sony a lot of goodwill and it cost developers a lot of headaches. I don’t know if “gimmick” is the right word for it but it was certainly a poor choice.
 
Mr Swine said:
Another problem that the PS3 has was the two different pools of RAM with 256MB each.

One very expensive Rambus RAM and one GDDR3 RAM made it much harder to develop for when Xbox 360 had one unified RAM pool

Ken Kutaragi got fired from PS after the Cell fiasco
Click to expand...
The relatively large OS footprint (120MB at launch though they kept reducing and eventually slightly over halved that by the end of PS3's cycle) was also a big issue for devs. Especially compared to the lean OS on 360 (only 32MB from launch).

The original plan for PS3 was also to have no dedicated GPU and leave geometry and shading to be handled by the SPE units. That plan was scuttled after it became clear actual performance would wind up well below what 360 could achieve and they went to Nvidia for a fast slapped on solution to get the console closer to competitive. This was a major design flaw on Kutaragi's part and an incredibly expensive fix to rectify.
 
Please avoid making toxic posts that contains offensive uses of mental health-related terms and uncomfortable usage of sex-oriented words. - Irene, Josh5890, mariodk18
no... if you remember, that was the time when cpu's were starting to go SMP

what happened is internet fanboy insanity decided cell was going to orgasm us into eternity


remember, before the nvidia announcement, it was thought that cell would be the CPU and rastorize everything too


gaf was(is) insane... there were posters convinced there was a broadband connection piped right into the core of Cell, and our collective gaming conciousness would render each other into a raytraced dreamland


it was sheer fanboy lunacy


buuut, totally reasonable to figure out SMP
 
0
YolkFolk said:
A new idea can only be classed as a ‘gimmick’ if it’s implemented by Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Lol. A lot of people forget that Sony is just as known for gimmicks as Nintendo. And just like Nintendo, some of them work, and some of them don't. Remember the pressure sensitive buttons of the DualShock 2? Remember how every PlayStation before 4 came with a new optical media format? Remember Eye Toy?
 
I would say no. The concept of the Cell processor was inline with what Sony had created in the past. The Emotion engine that powered the PS2 was a very unique design that was an absolute monster in certain areas and a bit of a dog in others, but this is how consoles were developed back in the day. They used completely custom processors that had strengths and weaknesses.

Microsoft brought to market the Xbox with a standard Pentium 3 CPU and a GPU with fixed function shaders. Xbox was using what was quickly becoming the standard in PC gaming a creating a console with that technology. The fixed function shaders in the Xbox proved to more often than not produce superior results to the PS2 and GameCube. GameCubes TEV unit was capable of creating similar effects but was seldom utilized by developers.

Then we move on to 2005 and Microsoft beats the competition to market with their new console. At this point game development in the PC space has fully shifted towards programable shaders and the 360 was equipped with a very capable for its time DX9 GPU. This marked the turning point where game development became more standardized and bespoke hardware was being phased out.

Sony saw what the 360 could do and quickly realized that the Cell could not compete with the 360's visual capabilities on its own. I believe they even considered equipping the PS3 with two Cell processors at one point, but ultimately decided to source a GPU from Nvidia. So in the end Sony developed the Cell and PS3 with a more traditional style of console development and did not see the writing on the wall, the industry was moving towards unified game development and programmable shaders would become the industry standard. While the Xbox may not have been a big success only selling 22 million units, it was certainly the beginning of the end for quirky very unique highly custom processors for consoles. Game development and hardware would converge into one unified standard and gone were the days of completely bespoke hardware for consoles.
 
Goodtwin said:
I would say no. The concept of the Cell processor was inline with what Sony had created in the past. The Emotion engine that powered the PS2 was a very unique design that was an absolute monster in certain areas and a bit of a dog in others, but this is how consoles were developed back in the day. They used completely custom processors that had strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I see things. The PlayStation 2 was quite notorious in this respect, something that gets often forgotten. I think there were other factors at play which made it less popular than the Xbox 360, mainly the price of course.

When developers got most out of the hardware it was leagues above anything I had on the Xbox 360. Just look at The Last of Us or the later Uncharted entries. Incredibly impressive stuff.
 
0
Yes. Sony indulges in a lot of technology gimmicks that I would argue they get a free pass on as gimmicks.
 
A few years ago I picked up a book called “The Race for a New Game Machine” about the development of these chips and how IBM and Toshiba basically sold one design (oversimplified) to both Sony and MS. Oh and Nintendo was also using PowerPC. So the folks at IBM and Toshiba certainly made out well from these gimmicks!

However, when the author got to summarizing the US video game industry before the PS3/360, they basically said “it crashed in the early 1980s with Atari and Sony brought it back in 1995 with the PlayStation”. No mention of anything else that might have happened in games from 1983 to 1994. I stopped reading there.
 
0
I don’t think that “gimmick” is the right word for the cell processor. Perhaps it was a fundamental design characteristic. A design choice that led to ballooning development costs and times.

That led to the decline of the AAA Japanese third parties. That also led to many Japanese developers moving to the DS and 3DS to control development costs. Then that led to the hot take that Japan prefers handhelds when Japanese customers were actually simply buying the video game console that had the best game library in their market.

It also led to the gradual decline in the Japanese PlayStation software sales due to the Japanese third parties no longer being able to make enough games to build a robust library that supplies entertainment to a variety of Japanese tastes.

It also influenced Nintendo to make the Switch with well-known components and provide standard development tools rather than going bespoke like in the WiiU.

The Cell’s failure also indirectly led to Nintendo becoming the market leader again due to them learning the lessons about needing to consolidate their hardware lines and supply it with enough software on their own lest they suffer software sales decline like the PS3, PS4, and PS5 in Japan.

Butterfly effect stuff.
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom