Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Both have a cpu bottleneck; they're cpu's are also basically identical, the X1's is just overclocked to be marginally, and i mean marginally, like 1.6 ghz vs 1.5 ghz irc, faster. That being said, making a game that focuses on the weakest part of the system, i.e cpu intensive as opposed to gpu intensive doesn't make a lot of sense as as early as last gen GPU's were vastly more important. Main reason being that CPU is mainly for OS and Virtualization, which makes sense considering the focus of the two systems pre launch. CIP: GPU's are vastly more important for gaming in general, and is the reason GPUs have been progressing so much faster than CPUs in all realms of computing, see GPGPU and PC where it's been this way since last gen |
And when you question that people criticize Sony and to a lesser stance MS for putting weak CPU, while Ubi focused on the element even modern PC don't focus... so it is more on betting on the wrong horse and lousy optimization (that Ubi recognized by spreading the projects to more teams and giving more time to devs).

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







