| MikeB said: @ Squilliam Yeah we could have had Killzone 2 level performance from the PS3 about a year and a half ago I bet. No you can't, often if you try to be innovative this poses major challenges. The PS3 isn't that hard to develop for at all, of course with more advanced tech there are more things you could do, like a Coleco Vision is much more easily to max out than a supercomputer games console. For example if a console can't handle HDR, you simply don't have to worry about this, if you only have 16 colors to work with, you only draw your graphics in 16 colors and so on. The real problem is legacy game engines, they were designed to work in certain ways which aren't very well geared towards the future. Building new modern game engine from scratch takes time, like some currently used game engines have been under development for over a decade. Some modern GPUs and CPUs are now taking a similar roadmap as technology found in the Cell processor. The PS3 is IMO an excellent stepping stone for games developers, they will have fewer problems in the future when those solutions hit the market. |
Are you implying that a company which has far more experience with multi-many core programming, with experience with computer chips ranging from your standard desktop X86's to server class CPUs (Of which the Cell is one), which has divisions dedicated to creating some of the best tools in the industry that managed to keep an "inferior" piece of hardware on parity. Either way you'll have to back down on one of the positions you keep.
If you back down on the Xbox 360 vs PS3 superiority you acknowledge that they are a lot more similar in real world performance than you have implied in the past or you acknowledge than Microsoft is a vastly superior tools developer which would have made the PS3 perform much better, faster. Either way one of those positions has to go because they are at complete odds with each other.
Tease.
