MikeB on 18 February 2008
@ Starcraft
A second ago you were talking about making valid third party references, but now on nothing more than a hope and a prayer you presume that the Ubisoft executive simply didn't know what he was talking about? Do you have any idea how one sided and biased most of your arguments are?
February 2008:
"Ubisoft Montreal tech director, Dominic Guay:
"The R&D revealed some pleasant surprises, as Guay explained: "One thing that we realized pretty quickly as we started R&D on PS3, was that the hardware architecture had a very nice fit with some of our technical design decisions. We were positively surprised by how efficient the SPUs (the Cell processing units) were to do such things as run our vegetation simulation, our animations or our physics systems."
Guay also expressed how impressed he has been with Blu-ray and the PS3's hard drive, noting: "The hard drive and Blu-ray are making our life easy considering FC2 is an open world continuously streamed around the player. That streaming bandwidth and disk space is very appreciated."
Please point to where system power, that is it's graphical output capacity and physics/AI abilities, played any significant part in deciding a console generation? You know full well the 60gb outsold the 20gb because it was easily the better value proposition of the two and from memory it constituted 80% of the stock Sony shipped.
Technical abilities:
- Amiga vs Atari ST (became obvious when developers created Amiga specific games)
- C64 vs ZX Spectrum (was obvious from the start)
- People upgraded their PCs en masse to play Doom and Quake, many PC gamers bought additional 3DFX upgrades en masse to play more impressive 3D games. PCs have meanwhile become less of a factor with regard to gaming. In the past for playing the most impressive games you bought an inefficient PC. SDTV couldn't compete with monitors anyhow, however HDTVs can and are now more interesting due to larger sizes.
