Do you prefer the generations that were competitive, or one-sided?

[curl-6]

Spindel said:

curl-6 said:

Radically different hardware means a lot of your tech won't translate 1:1 so you have to spend extra time (and hence money) reworking things. Heck, even Switch 1 ports could take around a year (and a dedicated team) to pull off. 

It's well documented also that many devs hated working with PS3 due to how much of a pain in the arse it was to get games running well on it.

As I understand it the PS3 wasn’t actually that bad, but many devs went into it without the knowledge of how the hardware works and expected it to be like the PPC+GPU combo of the 360. I mean late gen PS3 exclusives and port where really good once they learned and the major engines where ported. But as I understand it a system that was horrible for real to develop on because of choices made in hardware combinations was the Sega Saturn. 

The PS3 actually was that bad, there's years of compromised ports that demonstrate this. 360 was simply easier to develop for, which is better for developers as it saves them time and money.

If the PS3 was actually developer friendly, then games would have looked amazing in 2007 instead of years later.

There are actually quite a few consoles that were difficult to work with; Saturn, N64, PS2, PS3, Wii U.