| KBG29 said: I do not get why people keep bringing up multiplatform games. If that is the area of concern then of course the Cell and Blu-ray was a waste of time. No multiplatform dev so far has had the balls to tell MS, we are making this game PS3 first and scaling back to you console. The PS3 always gets the shaft. I know that this is because of the sales, and it was the same way with the original Xbox vs the PS2. Last gen Xbox versions should have blown away PS2 versions, but all you got was better anitailiasing, and framerate. Now as far as the PS3 versions being worse. That is very 2007. In the last two years, it has been to close to call. Most games look identical besides colors, with a pretty even split for games looking better on one platform over the other. Going into the future, things should continue to get better for PS3 on this front. Sony knows that devs will not take the time to learn to program for the PS3, and they have been very generous in giving out all of there tricks. Gurillia, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Sony Santa Monica have all been completly open with 3rd parties. As the PS3 continues to sell, and Sony becomes profitable, they may even be able to lend dev power to certain studios to make true PS3 versions of there games. Stuff like Madden, and Call of Duty would be great with a true PS3 version that could be ported down to 360. However I don't see PS3 being fully taken advantage of until we have next gen consoles on the market, that all use HD formats for content. |
Obviously depending on your tastes, somewhere between 75% and 95% of all games people buy for their HD console this generation will be multi-platform games. Now having the "Inferior" version of a game in itself isn't reason enough to get "angry" at Sony, but if a consumer spent more money buying the PS3, Sony lost more money on the PS3 hardware, the hardware came out a year later, and developers invested more resources to optimize the PS3 version and it still is "Inferior" to the XBox 360 version there is a serious problem.
While it is impossible to know how it would have turned out, it is entirely possible that Sony could have made different choices for the PS3 hardware which provided lower theoretical performance but higher real world performance with less effort; and was a much less expensive system to manufacture. An example of this approach was the Gamecube in the previous generation which didn't have anywhere near to the theoritical performance of the PS2 or XBox (which is why Nintendo only published real-world stats for the hardware) but its ability to sustain high levels of performance in real world applications ensured that it produced several of the best looking games of the previous generation; and the system cost consumers less to buy, and Nintendo lost (far) less money selling the hardware than their competition.
What I have never understood about the fans of the Cell processor is how they always assume that moving away from high levels of theoritical performance means that real world performance would (necessarily) suffer; when (in fact) the PS3 could (potentially) be a higher performance and less expensive system if Sony stuck with a more conventional processor.
