| Pristine20 said: I may be flamed for this but it has to be said anyway. I've never gotten the concept of something being hard to code for vs one being easier. If it means the dev kits are more expensive or cheaper, I'll understand but this seems like its a question of if the coders can successfully make it work or not. If you ask me, perhaps some fault lies with the designers of the console architecture but more fault lies with the actual coders especially considering the fact that others can get the job done with no complaints. Think cod4. Looks to me that the entertainment industry just gets cut a lot of slack with all these excuses. At my last internship, I was stuck with a computer that uses vms for research while another group doing a similar project got to use windows xp. Could I do a piss poor job and complain that it's because I couldn't learn to use vms or that the maker of the hardware shouldn't have packaged vms with it? No In the real world, there are no excuses for a bad job so I'm sick of hearing stupid complaints. |
It's not about excuses (not always at least). A harder architecture makes development more sluggish, therefore requiring more time and money to accomplish the same results. In the real world of business, this counts a lot.
By the way, it's not only about architecture but also development tools, which Microsoft is an expert on unlike Sony.
It shouldn't really come as a surprise that the PS3 is a hard architecture. The same was true for the PS1 and PS2, but back then there were not as many complaints as those consoles were so successful that any additional development expense was perfectly justified. In the PS3 case, the programming difficulty seems to come mostly from the Cell's asymmetrical architecture with a high number of CPU cores.
My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957
