By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TRios_Zen on 24 December 2009
Edit Thread
darkknightkryta said:
CommonMan said:

I am also a happy PS3 owner that posed this very same question, and was ripped up one side and down the other for it. I was told in no uncertain terms that it's 80% lazyness on the developers and 20% lack of understanding of the hardware. In no way can we dare hold Sony in any way responsible. Yeck. . . I wash my hands of this.

I'll go on a limb here and blame the devs.  Why?  Cause Sony told them time and time again, make the game on the PS3 first with the 360 in mind you'll have no problems porting it over.  What do they do?  Make it on the 360 and run into problems when they make their PS3 version.  I myself would figure devs would have finished up their games in the pipeline that programmed on the 360 first, but I guess not, or they in a sense are lazy and program on the 360 first to get it out of the way and run into problems on the PS3 later.  Like, I know before you could chalk up Sony cause of the CPU they put in, but ultimately, the CPU wasn't he biggest problem early on, it was the unified shader/ram vs dedicated shaders/ram.  Going from dedicated to unified works, going unified to dedicated doesn't.  But at this point in the game, there's no reason why ANY dev is starting a multiplatform game on the 360 unless Microsoft is paying for it (Fallout 3 for instance, though I recall reading this on the interwebs, could be false). 

I know I'm late responding to this (Christmas Eve travels and all...) but...  If I understand correctly, your answer is that every developer in the world should just do what Sony says...and everything will be alright, huh?

Spelled out that way...do you really believe this?  EVERYONE just listen to Sony!  You'll be good then!!  That is flat out ridiculous man, sorry.

@commonman - too bad I didn't catch that other thread, I would've at least stuck with you.