Monster Madness producer Lee Perez has moved to clarify comments made in an interview with VideoGamer.com in which he said "memory limitations" are the biggest challenge of developing on the PS3.
another d1ckbag doing damage control now, maybe they will learn to keep their mouths shut about architecture they barely understand. Like he said they are not doing the porting but psyonix is. So a guy who is not even working on the PS3 is qualified to makes comments on its architecture?? fanboy developers fail again.
I'm sure they understand it perfectly if they have to write games for it. Maybe THEIR not the "d1ckbag"s The PS3 has 256mb RAM and includes a 256mb video card. At no time can the system or the graphics card use 512mb at once. This is the limitation. The 360 can dedicate UP TO 512mb to any 1 process if needed. Grow up and do your homework before opening your trap. In no way was the article false. Don't expect your "internet skillz" to overcome these college graduates who develop FOR the system. They know damn well what those systems have. All they said was that the PS3's 256mb VIDEO limitation was a problem when converting a game that required 512mb texture pools. Don't be a fool, stay in school.
PS3 users really need to calm down. Perez is absolutely right. And there's nothing wrong about it. If you design a game with the assumption you can load textures into 512MB static buffers (minus whatever else you need) and all of a sudden that's down to 256 this is a problem. If they take the HD, streaming, SPU performance into consideration in the first place, the 256 are sufficient, I am pretty sure. Especially if procedural textures are used instead of static textures. All he was saying is, that the original game was not designed that way. That's all. This is BTW also the biggest draw back of UT3 which had (and has ?) the same problems. Designed for a lot of texture memory.
player911...please inform us on when exactly the 360 ever dedicates 512 megs to a single process GPU bound or vice versa?...that NEVER comes close to happening... Epic commented on the unified vs. dedicated memory setups when optimising UE3 for the PS3...in which case the unified ram would only skew around 15megs in either direction for any one process...meaning, for the most part, the CPU and GPU were split down the middle in terms of ram anyway...The PS3 is setup more like a traditional gaming PC, just with radically less ram...the 360 is setup more like a budget laptop with an integrated grahpics chipset, albeit an equally powerful chipset...its just the memory allocation is totally different... what WAS missed from the original comment was that the G70 based RSX is perfectly capable of using the CPU's XDR (afterall, that piping is the biggest difference between the RSX and the 7800 GTX in which it is based off of)...so in the sense of texture pooling from static textures, the two consoles are very similar...its in how the CPUs behave and use memory allocation that is 100% different... THAT IS NOT what that guy said yesterday...he said the PS3 only has 256mb of 'video' ram, which it doesn't...the RSX can use the high bandwidth XDR ram if the developers are inclined... You shouldn't assume everyone on the internet is uneducated or ignorant...the people making the games do make PR mistakes...this is one of them...whether he was taken out of his original context is unknown...but his 'corrective' comments in this article do little to explain what he was talking about yesterday...
this guys still a loser, its been over 18 months and their still complaining about developing for the PS3! and has ANYONE even heard of monster madness?
More to the point is there much interest for the game.
He's fumbling. 'B-B-B-But t-t-that's n-not w-what w-w-we m-meant!!1111' I am sick of this crap. The PS3 is a complex system that should be explored. Developers need to stop making excuses and take the time to learn about the PS3 and what it can do.
Why would THIRD PARTY developers need to waste their time to explore the PS3 when they can just focus on the 360s version which is easier and cheaper to develope on.. You can't blame the developers for not wanting to waste their time trying to understand the PS3 more.. In business time is money! So the longer they take trying to understand the system the more money and development time is put into a game.. Sony is the one at fault in making a complex system and not providing the tools and help needed for the developers. You can also blame some of that on Microsoft for making it so much easier for developers.
Everything isnt about money! Now ur sounding like EA
why don't you listen to ted price of insomniac or hideo kojima of konami? and if the 360 is such a "dream" to develop for; why aren't devs lining up to be 1st party devs for MS instead of devs leaving MS? their 1st party studios are practically non-existant. aaaaaand, if development is easier and cheaper on 360, explain vaporware titles alan wake and halo wars. AW announced in '05 and still nothing. HW announced last year and is missing this years launch schedule. just some examples of how i think you're wrong. devs just don't want quick and easy. they want the best hardware to create the best games. there is nothing like ratchet on x360. nor is there anything like uncharted,GT5p,KZ2,MGS4. however, there isn't 1 game done on the 360 that can't be done on ps3. price and kojima have both stated that their games couldn't be done on 360 without running into trouble. is ps3 more advanced to dev. for? yes. does that mean 3rd party devs aren't interested? no. and by the way, you enjoy "monster madness". i'll just have to be content with MGS4.
In business time is money! --- Yes, and if they took the time, it would make them money. Ps3 is already ahead of Xbox in EU, So the time is comming they are going to have to put the effort into the PS3.
I cannot help but agree with you, Man. I have read "damn lazy ps3 developers" in hundreds and hundreds of posts and the central issue is just not understood by the SDF. - It costs developers MILLIONS to make games and all the risk is theirs. It's always a risk/payoff matrix decision for them to make when they develop a game. - If Sony wants to maximise the potential for their ps3, what is stopping them from releasing tools and devkits on par or better than what MS has supplied to the developers? - If Sony really believed there was THAT much untapped potential, they should be falling over themselves to get developers up to speed at any and all levels (as MS did right at the start), because developers have clearly been struggling to justify all the extra effort on PS3 for no more appreciable result. it really is that simple.
jaysquared, why would they waste their time on the 360(using your logic as to why any developer would waste their time on the PS3)? The 360, in many ways keeps the PS3 back. What you just asked me is quite foolish. Why waste time on the 360? If they are developers, then they need to act like developers instead of taking the easy way out when it comes to developing games. The 360 was the easy way out. edit: Love the disagree there. Instead of proving me wrong, the easy way is chosen.
I will have a go at replying to you but before I am branded I just want say that I think I'm more of a PS3 fan and don't own a 360. You seem to have ignored the valid points above regarding development time and money. It has been stated many times that the 360 is an easier and more familiar (because of PC developement) to develop for. So for these companies developing games for the 360 is cheaper and yet can still have desired results. The longer a game is in development the more it is costing the company. The quicker the company can start seeing overall returns for the development the better the profit margin. Lets not kid ourselves that developers main priority is anything other than making money. Game development is a business after all. 360 being the "easy way out" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Now, on saying that I do think that if the time is put into developing for the PS3 the results are usually better. But does that potentially (as it's not guaranteed at the beginning of development) better game offset the extra cost of development? Some devs have obviously said yes whereas others have chosen to stick with the 360.
Fine, you have a few points coolfool, but I am sick and tired of developers not AT LEAST trying with the PS3. That's why I felt they were taking the easy way out. If someone like Kojima, the guys who are making Resistance 2, and Killzone 2 can try understanding the technology a bit more, then why can't more developers do that? That's ridiculous.
There are just some people who get so emotional on N4g, that no logic or reasonable debate will sway them in their crusade. I do believe they are called trolls. bubbles for you.
Is designing a game for the 360 and then expecting a port will be as good. Especially now, this far into ps3's life, when other devs have tried this and blatantly failed. Why would devs still do this and not learn from past failures? It doesn't make sense even from a business perspective because a crappy port never really sales.
I could give you my take on it, but I would lose all my bubbles for just stating some facts. Yes. that is n4g for you.
Sony has a bunch of first party studios. More than Nintendo and Microsoft combined and Nintendo RELIES on first party games and has since SNES. Sony has enough 1st party studios to put out at least 1 great game every 10-12 months, plus they help with exclusive titles. If it costs money for developers to 'figure out' the PS3 it must also cost Sony to 'teach' it to them. However in Sony's eyes, why put that much effort into multiplatform when they see little to no benefit in it? I mean GTA didn't even sell consoles on either side and that's a huge multiplat title. What I'm trying to say is that Sony has great 1st party support to put out fantastic looking games (see Ratchet). Now if they are producing games that cannot be produced on the 360, and are making money (most of Sony's game money is in software sales), then why shouldn't it be up to the 3rd party devs to 'figure out' the PS3 to make their own money? Its a risk/reward situation... They could risk it and make it PS3 only, or lead develop on the PS3 to 'possibly' unlock some untapped power not found on the 360, or start (or go exclusive) to the 360, know exactly what you can or cannot do and 'may' have a better or worse looking end product.
That doesn-t mean they can not program the 360 version with the PS3 in mind. That is, if they REALLY care about money, they can start with the 360 version and make it work the way it would work on PS3 with split memory; otherwise they are only setting themselves up as PS3 owners will not buy their garbage. I know this falls on deaf fanboy ears (like karlostomys, judging by his avatar), but this is for the ones that arent as dense. To know what I mean, read this: "The new developer, Psyonix, has great experience with UE3 and the PS3. Therefore we had a fairly smooth transition to the PS3. The problem was not the console's but the technical assumptions that were made in the game's original engineering. Multiplatform games really need to take into consideration the technical nuances of the systems early on." "Monster Madness: Grave Danger is set for release on the PS3 in Q3 2008." Again, for emphasis: "The problem was not the console's but the technical assumptions that were made in the game's original engineering" OK, it is releasing in Q3 2008, but they made "technical assumptions" about PS3 so far after the specs were revealed? Remember, they are game developers, they should have a fairly good idea of how to develop for a system once specs are revealed. So wow, talk about being an ignorant developer, no wonder he made such stupid comments initially. The dev can still save money and make a good game on both PS3 and 360. Activision did it with Call of Duty 4, EA did it with Burnout Paradise, Capcom with DMC4, among other examples, and it paid off.
And they keep putting out new tools and software packages (as well as documentation) to get developers up to speed on multi-core architecture. But there's only so much they can do for third parties due to legal issues. For example, while every studio within SCE shares technology with each other, they're not allowed to share that technology with third parties due to such legalities. But they are allowed to share techniques, which is what the Nocturne initiative is all about.
Monster who? Never heard of this crap developer/dude. On other hand, about that Kojima dude and his MGS4, it looks amazing, right?
This game bombed out the ass on the xbox 360, it's going to bomb here too. Only, now, he's trying to make it bomb on purpose. Who the hell is going to buy the ps3 version now that the main dev said it's too hard to work on the system and the game isn't going to be as good, basically? No one. What kills me is Monster Maddness looks like a ps2 game. uncharted looks better than anything on the xbox 360 1+1 isn't = 2 here. With all that said and with what the main dev here said, I guess we can call Bullsnots on this version being superior with better graphics and textures and all that, right? The funny thing, he's the guy who said it.
the whole xbox 360 is one big limitation buy a ps3 dont buy a crap xbox 360
one of those crappy lil games you pay 5 dollars for off the playstation store.
Is there some kind of PS3-faulty news template for everyone to get? "The PS3 <please insert fault here>" Latley the PS3-faulty news has just become stupid, with nothing to back them up
if its NOT all about money then what is this about. developers build games with the thought of making a hit which in return provides a big cash flow!! an you guys are acting like this guy is back peddling on his comments or something. he said the same thing again, the 360 has more memory to work with because its UNIFIED an the PS3 has only 256 availble at anytime but its offset by the cell. an thats what the problem has been. when developers make a game to run on the 360's unified memory which has more availble, porting that game to the PS3 was getting sad results an you guys know how PS3 ports were.
Errrr. no! What you have done is to repeat exactly the same inaccurate comments that got people annoyed in the first place. The PS3 has 512 meg of ram available at all times - the only difference in the architecture is how you access and use it. The BS comments about 'offset by the cell' are the kind of techno babble spoken by people with almost no understanding of data motion within a complex next gen system. He spoke about an area of the game he knows nothing about, and has now had to try and cover up his obviously poor comprehension. If he wanted to talk about technical issues, he should have had his programmer there, so that he wouldn't expose his technical misunderstandings. There are very few producers in the business who understand the tech stuff, and to be fair, that's not a problem, only a basic appreciation is needed to do the producer role right. I've worked with many successful producers who have very little idea of how the code is executed. Its only a problem if you start talking about areas of the game pipeline that you don't really understand - and thats what happened here.
he doesn't even actually work with any hardware and his devs don't work with the ps3. but,if it was "just about money" as you say. devs. would only be making games for ps2. huge install base(more than all three next gen systems combined) but there is more involved. why not listen to what other devs (who have made huge selling games, unlike southpeak) are saying about the ps3. many have said it takes a little time to get to grips with it; but, once you do, there is more potential there than the 360. and we are seeing this in games like ratchet, uncharted, GT5p, KZ2, MGS4, resistance2. and as more time goes by, MS will be forced to bring out a new system because their hardware is already looking old.(dvd9 format? forza 2 is said to be on 2 discs? yea, that's next-gen.lol) so, if all a dev or consumer wants is a "cookie-cutter" game where they are all close to same game; then, 360 is perfect choice.(really, is halo 3 much diff. than halo 2 other than a few multi-player tweaks? is gears2 looking much diff. than gears1?) many of the well-known devs are making or developing amazing games for ps3 and the potential isn't nearly tapped. yea, if it's just about money, devs should be making ps2 games. if it's about trying to turn out the same game over and over; they should be making games for the 360. but, if someone wants to make or buy true cutting edge, next gen games; the ps3 is place to go.
I'm actually suprised so many of you about are complaining about gnothe1 comment. He is accurate and I suspect you guys might have a misunderstood the PS3 architecture. It is true that 512MB ram on the PS3 is available at any time. However, not all the 512MB of ram is available for textures if the developer wish so. In fact the PS3 is limited to 256MB RAM for textures period! The 360 allows for far more flexible use of the 512 MB ram available in exchange for a small performance hit for every memory access. So the developer is free to decide how much of the memory should be used for the CPU or GPU. Doesn't matter who made the original comment about this, even if it is Kojima or any other game creator. Fact is fact, and he is right.
I'll tell you what the problem is. They developed a crappy game they released on the 360 which got a universal 5 out of 10. Then they decided to port that junk onto the PS3 (since that crappy game didn't make any money on the 360). They didn't make the game flexible enough to be easily ported to the PS3 since they thought the install base on the 360 would be enough to be profitable. But they forgot that gamers in general regardless of system don't like crappy games.
You pretty much summed it up, but he didn't help his cause by commenting in an area he doesn't fully understand
lol. Monster Madness?
Well since the PS3 and 360 are completly different beasts in the way of architecture this is understandable. Also cos of the difference's, ports will be very unlikely. Most assets would need to be rewritten. They must have done this as the game has been improved on the PS3, higher res texture's used, controls tweaked etc. Now if there was a problem with memory on PS3, why would they be increasing the res of the texture's.
Awful demo means awful game. Never heard of this dev.
that's what happens when dev's can't multi-task,it's a crying shame!south peak who?oh well looks like another game that we'll have to boycott...memo to lazy dev's:if you make a multi plat game and you want success on both systems,work hard and shut the fluck up and stop whining because it's a little harder to dev for the other system!
Dev X will always have an opinion. If this were the other way around you guys would be saying I told you so. Just buy the games you like and speak with your $$$.
You are plain stupid and some other the other 360 posters aren't much better, why waste the time and money to make the ps3 version good, oh i don't know maybe the 13 million ps3 already sold and growing at a good pace, are a potential market for their game. Take the time and effort to make both versions good = good(relatively) 360 sales and good ps3 sales, halfass port to the ps3 = not many sales, look at how ps3 owners looked at madden 08. Ps3 owners will not tolerate halfass ports any longer, and the ps3 has enough of a market share, that 3rd parties decent ones at least will realize that the ps3 has too high of a user base to ignore. And will design their new games with the ps3 version in mind first so there is alot less difficulty getting it to work with both systems, rockstar and infinity, forgot team ninja and capcom did why can't the other devs figure it out.
going to buy the 360 version, because it has unified memory...YAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!! wait a sec...i dont own a 360...sh!t!! my memory unification dreams are slipping away guess im stuck with my crappy ps3 huh...HUH!!...ANSWER ME LEE PEREZ..UNHEARD OF MAN!! lol
and if the games cost about 5 dollars. then it might be alright to buy one that way you wont care about the old graphics, generic dashboard and if it breaks you can just buy a new one or just toss it in the trash can. Microsoft never had a succesful history until they dropped supprt for their fake ps2 copy and introdused the xbox 360 when nobody was out yet! Its all Ghost recon advanced warriors fault! That game was the shizzle on xbox 360. But as of Today history will repeat itself and xbutts will always fall for their Scams! Thats why we laugh at them all the time. they come on this site saying oooh I cant wait for this game and My system is better than yours. Then they get the rug pulled out from under them, Bang their heads on the floor and get up dumber than they was before! "Xbox is gonna unviel xbox 720 at E3 that will have everything like the playstation 3 only better!" They never think after the critical beatdown they get from MIcrosoft. My first xbox was discontinued but it just came out? Oh? it was a prototype for this xbox 360, 3 years later... Playstation 3 is the future and my xbox is in the shop. Next time i will buy the xbox 720, I hope its better! Wrong, DUMBBOT it wont be as good or better than playstation 3. Its just the Generic Version. You be better off mailing your money to independant developers to make games on BluRay Stupid.
*turns back to continue playing MGS4* Hmff... Don't see any limitations here.
turns back to mgs4 after waiting 5mins for the next level to load. why?
looks like he got a ton of death threats from the sony fanboys and had to retract the comments, you guys are sad.
then you can understand the Cost/Benefits of developing for different platforms. Especially when there is a lot of money involved. I'm no developer and don't really get into the technical jibber jabber, but I understand TIME = MONEY. Look at the 2 platforms and come to your own reasonable conclusion.
i didnt read this article but did he really recieve death threats? if he did then thats just sad if he didnt then you need to start using facts for when you speak
"The new developer, Psyonix, has great experience with UE3 and the PS3. Therefore we had a fairly smooth transition to the PS3. The problem was not the console's but the technical assumptions that were made in the game's original engineering. Multiplatform games really need to take into consideration the technical nuances of the systems early on." "Monster Madness: Grave Danger is set for release on the PS3 in Q3 2008." Again, for emphasis: "The problem was not the console's but the technical assumptions that were made in the game's original engineering" OK, it is releasing in Q3 2008, but they made "technical assumptions" about PS3 so far after the specs were revealed? Remember, they are game developers, they should have a fairly good idea of how to develop for a system once specs are revealed. So wow, talk about being an ignorant developer, no wonder he made such stupid comments initially. The dev can still save money and make a good game on both PS3 and 360. Activision did it with Call of Duty 4, EA did it with Burnout Paradise, Capcom with DMC4, among other examples, and it paid off.
we all know the 360 is the cheap mans PC gaming rig! Its not hard to make games for. It doesnt take learning something new to make something good! That makes it cheaper because the time spent making the game is not wasted in getting around some issue you have with working with the machine.... Its why the xbox3 will be competing with the PS3 for years to come
Simply because the PS3 is more like a PC than the 360 is. But the PS3 will definitely be competing with the third Xbox for several years, and quite successfully I'm sure.
Are just lazy and underestimated the ps3. Once you get the foundation for the ps3 it gets xtremely easier. Its not like it just naturally takes long to develop a game. It just takes long if YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING. Which these devs dont and need to quickly learn. They expected the ps3 to be all easy and dandy just like the 360 that they had an entire year to work on ahead of the ps3 and just make games as easy. The world is a more complicated place than that.
Are you not reading, or is it your comprehension. Quickly learning the ps3 is not possible, hence more time=more money. How long was MGS4 in development? GT5? How much did they cost?
All three games were announced years ago, and still haven't been released. Proper game development in general takes a lot of time and money; there's no way around it, and it's not platform-specific.
MGS was in development simply because Kojima wasnt done its the largest game out for a reason. Second GT5 I have no clue what is wrong w/ it or w.e they are doing but Im 100% it has nothing to do w/ the ps3 being complicated ur just naming random games that have taken long development at least name good 1s like Haze. And how has Insomnaic learned quickly what about Epic Naughtydog I seen no problems in their games they can do it. Even some of EA's studios have done something good Criterion Games with Burnout all those studios have proven time and time again that hard work pays off.
Insomniac so the things you just said have no Merit sorry just mentioning those developers like Hideo Kojima and Insomniac put your paragraphs to shame! and for the record it seems like Hideo Kojima took his time with the PS3 and same thing with Insomniac I wonder why? So I guess the things you said is just plain crap same thing what karlostomy and oh don't forget Square Enix there making Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIII Versus and it was the same thing with Epic!.
Let the developers figure it out man, just look at the games for both systems. They both look good and play well as many of you have named many examples. None of us are computer engineers here (or maybe some of you are), so let's leave the technical difficulties up to the developers. One thing I can tell you though, dev 'waste time' on doing the PS3 version because at the end of the day they still make more money than the time spend, so it's a positive business venture. And you all know that PS3 sales are now surpassing that of 360 on a week to week basis world wide and sometimes in America too; so just for the heads up, don't be surprised if 3rd party is now pushing more effort towards the PS3 architecture, because it makes business sense. On the theme of multi-core programming though, well that seems to be the way computers are going in the next few years, alot of developers would be interested in getting hands on experience on it anyways. More and more computer games would be programmed this way as well in the future.
As the PS3 market grows it makes more and more sense to develop for the PS3 and if you expect to sell any reasonable amount, you have to do a quality game. I will partially agree with your comment about multi-core - that is certainly the way things are going. Unfortunately Sony chose to do a asymetrical design that is not the way things are going. Therefore, developers (and the software industry) don't gain much by learning how to make the PS3 work. I am hopeful Sony gets smarter the next generation (I don't think we will ever see a high utilization of the PS3's processing power because of the hardware architecture). The Cell is a fantastic chip for certain applications but not for gaming code.
People should learn to have some backbone and not backdown everytime the fanboys cry foul and spew death threats for comments that are not music to their ears.
its funny to me when you got these guys that say the PS3 will be competing with the new xbox!! are you guys freaking serious. the PS3 is barely equal to the 360 right now an you think that it will be able to compete with a NEW system with updated tech!! you sony only guys are so laughable its a shame!! an as much as you guys like to claim PS3 superioty just look at the games. the 360 can run circles aroung the PS3 when it comes to textures, MGS4 for instance is a great game im 17 hours in just hit act 5, the character models are awesome, but look at everything else. it looks like it belongs in another game, it kinda has that RFOM look, an that wasnt one of the best games grapically. many of you like to claim that COD4, an DMC4 looks better on the PS3 when its been shown that the 360 version supports better textures, just like AC an many others. is the 360 more powerful NO!! is the PS3 more powerful NO, i'll say there even with each system being better at certain things. now i my opinion the PS3 kills the 360 in particle affects just like the 360 kills the PS3 in textures so there both even, but you guys dont wanna give the 360 no credit for anything even when the games show to run an look better on he 360!!
He's right. Ps3 is crippled like a 90year old without his legs
The MS developer toolset is better. The Sony toolset needs some time to match it. One of those things. The MS architecture is more traditional and the PS3 more radical in terms of development requirement. Smaller development studios will find it easier to break even on XB360. Producers like Kojima, Insomniac and Naughty Dog will find ways to make the PS3 run away from the competition - but it comes with a price - time and money to develop the technology - which smaller devs don't have the luxury of this early in the gen. As the tech gets passed on to the 3rd Party devs, we should see the ease of development and quality of ports improve. The memory model is different, with its advantages and disadvantages. Life is interesting.
every developer who has taken the time to get past the split memory obstacle has done it by investigating Cell. And to my knowledge each of the has been if not excited, at least satisfied, about the results.
And I agree with you but sony gamers take offense to the split like they got short man syndrome. Devs are working only with what sony gave them blame...HMMMmmm this is a hard one SONY!
MAN you sony boys just don't want to get it do you. Unified XBox Non unified ps3 Do you get it now. 360 could use 500mb for the graphics processor and 12mb for the xenon processor (total 512mb). OR the 360 can use 292mb for GPU and 220 for the cpu for a total MB pool of 512 again all from the 512mb pool. The ps3 has two totals 256 for gpu and 256 for cpu. That means the ps3 can only use 256 for the cpu and at the [same time]<---two key words another 256 for the gpu. Not 257 for the gpu or cpu just a max individually (cpu & gpu)of 256mb or less not more for each. Do you idiots get it NOW! Its main memory pool is 512 MB in size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... The PlayStation 3 has 256 MB of XDR main memory<PAY ATTENTION] and<KEY WORD] (LOOK HERE NEXT> 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for<KEY LITTLE WORD AGAIN] the RSX. So yes the ps3 had 512mb but it is split smack down the middle for the cpu and gpu thats 256 gpu 256 cpu hence non-unified memory pool. The 360 has no split it can use all, none, or some for the gpu and cpu at the same time hence unified memory pool. You got to spell it out for the little ones.
in other words... PS3 sucks
Sorry, you can't dedicate the full 512 in the 360 to any one task. The CPU has to have RAM, and the GPU has to have RAM. You CANNOT dedicate all 512MB ram to one or the other. Anyone who thinks so is retarded. Unified memory is a technology that is used in low-end, high-yield cheap-o computers to save costs. Intel Graphics Media Accelerator, anyone? If you think there is no limit to how much RAM you can dedicate to the GPU in the 360, then you're just plain stupid, or you don't know much about UMArchitecture.
you just showed you have NO COMMON SENCE, all he was trying to do is show you that if a developer wanted to us 300mb of memory JUST FOR VIDEO on the 360 they could but the same CANT be said about the PS3. the most video ram that can ever be accessed on the PS3 is 256, but like it was stated, that PROBLEM can be off set by the cell. the PS3 just dont have the memory to load great textures, it has the POWER to do so but that power is limited by the memory. that limit can be offset by the cell but now you got more work to do because now you have to carry some of this work load onto the cell, which my be time consuming an expensive!! do you get how that works now. you can off set the PS3 limits with the cell but its gonna cost you, whether its time or money!!
You insolent fool, the PS3 has MASSIVE texture ability....it's called STREAMING TEXTURES you know-nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ^^^^ THAT is what the PS3 is MADE to do. LOL you can offset the split memory issue by using procedural textures, texture streaming, and the like. Doing so totally negates the need for more RAM. PNWED The PS3 is only DESIGNED for procedural ANYTHING. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH This STUPID, OLD-FASHIONED developer LOVES having a system that lets him CRAM as many textures into MEMORY as he can! He couldn't give a rat's ass about streaming....which is what the PS3 is designed to do, and do VERY WELL!!!
Your the very little one I was reffering to with the short man syndrome. You just don't get it. You define ignorance. Argue with sony they built the flaw.
really wrong fuel for fanboys 4 sure