Greenberg: Wii, Xbox 360 are really the two big winners but not for PS3

[Cypher1980]

Theo said:

PostModGuru said:

Demotruk said:
That point in the PS2's life was when the whole industry had accepted that PS2 was the way to go in terms of software support. That isn't going to happen with the 360, especially not as the recession hurts expensive titles more than little ones.

 

 

From a business standpoint don't you think it would make more sense to develop a game on the console that has a higher attach rate and costs less to develop for(360 is easier to develop for than ps3 = less man hours = less $ to develop).  I think the recession might actually help microsoft as they have the price advantage, bigger install base, lower development costs, and more growth in key markets. 

 

Well from a business standpoint it's more likely more devs will be going multiplatform, most devs havn't been finding it difficult or expensive to port their games onto the ps3. What I don't like to see though is a rushed game trying to milk the market by coming out on every platform possible though, pc, ps2, ps3, 360, wii, ds, psp and i-phone.

 

CoD4 and 5 have both sold extrememly well on both consoles making lots of profit.

COD 4 and 5 were developed independently to my knowledge. In essence there was no port.

To date I cannot think of a game that has been developed on the 360 and made a jump (port) onto the PS3 without encountering some ridiculous frame rate issue (Orange Box) or graphical glitch (Fallout 3)

I therefore think the point PostModGuru made is valid. The Xbox as a primary Dev platform makes more commercial sense.

Of course dual development is better for everyone as the PS3 ends up with an equally good version. Its just that I assume two dev teams costs that little bit more.

Out of interest can anyone name a straight port to PS3 that held up well next to the 360 version ?