Groucho said:
It has nothing to do with disc space. The game was designed for a 9MB DVD, not for a 25-50GB BD. The issue is that the XBox360 can have more than 256MB dedicated to textures in memory, whereas the PS3 cannot, unless you want to jump through some hoops. If you write your game to use 300MB of texture memory, you either need to have some additional code in your PS3 rendering routines to handle that (which could cause some framerate issues), or you just need to cut down some textures. I think the latter is usually preferable and more cost effective, and obviously so does Bethesda. On the other hand, if you design your game around having 256MB of texture memory, and to utilize 6 vector-math-devouring SPUs for animations and fancy vertex calculations to assist the GPU, you can do some pretty cool stuff that the 360 cannot achieve -- but then you'd be authoring your game exclusively for the PS3, and it wouldn't make an easy transition to the 360 (easy... meaning it would be impossible without a framerate hit)... Unless you're making a PS3 exclusive, its probably more effective to go crossplatform and make the PS3 version suffer a little, unless you have a little horsepower to spare for the texture swapping with main memory. This is pretty much the classic "PS3 exclusives are better" vs "X360 crossplats are better" situation. When you do see a PS3 crossplatform game that outperforms the 360 version, its because that game is bottlenecked by something the PS3 is more effective at than the 360 -- i.e. animations, vertex stuff, etc. If the reverse is true, its almost always a texture memory thing. That description may be a little technical, but I hope it makes sense. |
both have 512mb memory though the way to access it difference, i recently learning low level programming, i tend to agree its saving cost hammering the ps3 port.
