firebush03 said:
I'm uninformed on the history of PS3, though my understanding was (a.) it lacked third-party support (due to an overly complicated development system(?)), (b.) it was severely criticized early on for its aggressive price-for-entry ($599 in 2006 is rather unhinged), (c.) etc., and it is for these reasons why many considered PS3 the worst of the original four PlayStation systems. My question is whether PS5 is doing better or worse than PS3? In almost all ways, it seems PS3 triumphs. No GaaS, no season passes, less price gouging, more games, etc...though is it possible the rosy-tinted glasses have altered what is reality? Maybe this is a question for a different forum, but your comment here addresses a topic which always has me thinking... |
The PS3 definitely did not lack third party support, at any point.
The PS3 was harder to develop for than the 360, so devs often chose to develop for the 360 first and then port the games for the PS3, and in the process they still did not utilize all of the Cell processor auxiliary cores power because they just wanted to release the game that was already ready, and it would take quite the considerable effort to take more of the PS3 than what they already had gotten.
It took years and a lot of help from Sony for most devs to start learning and caring to use the Cell better, and when they did the games could get quite impressive results. Sony studios were the ones mostly making better use of it and the games showed, PS3 first party games were often very impressive, but all third parties games were there as well.
