Bokal said:
NJ5 said:
misteromar mk4 said:
bdbdbd said:
People seem to miss completely one important thing, which is that PS3 was designed for multiple tasks, in which Cell is definately at its best. It can handle multiple tasks at a time, with none to little loss in performance.
Then, Cell is designed for another use than just PS3, so PS3 was a good trojan horse for the Cell to enter the market. The devs would become familiar with programming the Cell and the price of the processor would also drop significantly. |
I agree, it was Sony using their gaming division R&D dollars to further themself with a processor which would excel in HD tv's etc. Kind of like how they also forced blu-ray on their playstation customers.
|
So you're saying that not only did they sacrifice/risk the Playstation brand for a disc format, but also for a CPU?
I don't think Sony hates their gaming division that much.
|
The main problem of the PS3 today is that sony hasn't been able to produce a 3D engine that would push the PS3 to its limits and that developpers use the very cool Unreal Engine that runs like shit on the PS3 but runs flawlessly on PC and the 360.
|
UE3 runs like shit on Xbox360 as well.
As a matter of fact, i have yet to play a PS3 game with such massive performance and visual issues as Mass Effect or The Last Remnant on Xbox360. Even the games made by Epic (the creators of the engine) have the same tehnical issues in their games, though not on the same level as the rest and this mostly because of the linear nature of their games.
The best thing a console dev can do is not use UE3 and that's a proven fact.
