Top
850°

EA Dev: The way PS3 Dev Tools work Just Sucks

A NASCAR developer on developing games for PS3:

"The truth is the PS3's tools and the way it works just sucks. The truth is they are both virtually the same in terms of hardware when it comes to how powerful they are, maybe the PS3 has a few different things that makes it a bit more advance, and Sony has this idea that it is designed for optimal development but that's a load of crap. In the last generation we would make the game for PS2 and then port it over to Xbox, but because Xbox was easier to develop for, we could actually enhance the title a little if we wanted to. The case with this generation is different, now we make the game for 360 first and then port it over to PS3, but we really don't have the time to mess with how the PS3 works to really add to much more. It will change in the future, but for now it sucks."

Read Full Story >>
xboxevolved.e-mpire.com
The story is too old to be commented.
MK_Red3621d ago

Well, someone should tell EA The way you work on your games sucks way more. "EA, It Sucks!" new EA moto. I hate really them. PS3 is certianly way different than 360 and more so than PS2 was to Xbox but if PS3 is such a hard machine to work on then how come devs of GRAW2 had no problem and Criterion, the team behind Burnout made Paradise on PS3 as lead platform and had no problem? Or how 2K Sports games can run at 60fps on both platforms?
Because EA sucks. Sorry for my angry rant but I've had it with EA's BS, trying to cover up their laziness.

ALI-G3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

-maybe EA are lazy but what about VALVE who smacked the ps3 few days ago
-maybe EA are lazy but what about ID-SOFTAWRE who was not happy with the PS3 RAM(ps3 reserve 94MB ,360 only 32MB for the OS)
-maybe EA lazy but what about UBI-SOFT who said ps3 cannot handle the A.I as weel as 360(recently KZ2 smacked for it A.I).ubisoft games always relased later in ps3 than 360
-what up with PS3 first party games that did not live up to thier promices
-OBVILON team had to duplicate the date in BR (cause it eas slow read speed)

so now all of them are wrong and sony right ???

just it like this ( you have TOYOTA COROLA with F60 engine and ENZO gear box ) this is the PS3.they forget about the transmition,driver,....

-devloper will try to give the best quiality they have (to sell more,not to make the customer happy) but that going to be limited with the hardware, the tools availabe and resources:and PS3 IS NOT AT ADAVANTAGE in any of the 3 mentioned aspect:
it hard to devlope + engines do not run quite well in it that all need much more resourses than most devloper can give to 1 game

DarkArcani3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

Both consoles have the SAME AMOUNT OF RAM.

Edit: Disagrees.... Someone find me something that says one has more RAM than the other.

larry0073621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

so what do you expect from them.

ps3 can run all x360 games but not vice versa. Peter moore would obviously making EA do trashtalking

But this is what developer say

***************************** ****************************** * *********
SQUARE ENIX === we are doings things on FF13 which u could hardly manage without the ps3

FACTOR 5
IGN: Quick Fanboy wars question -- Could Lair be done under its current spec on the Xbox 360? If so, why go with the PlayStation 3 "only" instead of going cross-platform?

Eggebrecht: Lair in its current form couldn't be done on 360. We are using large amounts of Cell's SPUs for all of our geometry, landscape, simulations, animations, even troop AI. When we create a game, we absolutely focus on the platform it is designed around. Would we do one for 360, it would be a different game and a different engine -- most crucially perhaps though: Lair is an entirely different game without the motion control and gesture recognition since it was designed around it.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles...

NAMCO on RR7
http://www.pro-g.co.uk/ps3/...

Not one to blow his own trumpet, Teramoto also expressed his pleasure to offer RR7 in 1080p, at 60fps and in 5.1, something he claims is only possible on the PS3.

***************************** ******************************* ******

BTW both x360 and ps3 have same amount of RAM

***************************** ******************************* ******

Both have same amount of ram

However x360 has very slow 512mb of ram @ 700mhz

ps3 has 256 mb of GDDR3 @ 700mhz and 256mb of XDR @ 3.2 ghz (4.5x the speed)

However ps3 cannot be compared to x360 since it has 2x the cache as x360 mapping at 2x the speed.

ps3 has 2x the bandwidth as x360 (50g/s vs 22g/s)

Ofcourse not to even mention Cell is 10x XENON

***************************** ****************************** * ******

BTW ps3 takes up 20m extra RAM only when you are videochatting in GAMES eg WARHAWK...which is fun

However not all games incorporate VIDEOCHATTING INTERFACES

***************************** ****************************** * *******

FAST direct mapping + XDR more than compensates for the addition of extra RAM (only during VIDEOCHATTING ingame)

WafflesID3621d ago

ubi had no problem? Oh guess thats why we are just NOW seeing rainbow six and GRAW 2 on the PS3.

LOTs of developers are having slight difficulties with the PS3. Eventually that will change, but they have had one less year to work on the PS3 than the 360 and there hasn't been THAT big of a learning curve with the 360 to begin with.

SofaKingReetodded3621d ago

how can there be a learning curve for a repackaged PC with an xbox logo on it??

I mean seriously, anything found in the 360 can be found on the market.
I just built me a PC that takes a massive dump on the 360.

I can't say the same for the PS3. Let me know when CompUSA put's cell processors in the display case.

ShiftyLookingCow3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

more than EA, its "EA Sports". They are a bunch of lazy devs.

ps: reported this as lame as thought it was some fanboy rant against PS3, damn I wish I could cancel it, its not working :(

edit: on second thought, maybe its the way EA Sports manages things, a game each year for each and every single sport. As we all know EA doesnt give a damn about its devs(some work for 80 hours per week without increased pay) and their lives. Work for these devs should feel monotonous.

tplarkin73621d ago

But the 360 has an extra 10MB of EDRAM. This extra memory is embedded in the GPU and is extremely powerful. For example, it will give "free" 4xMPAA (anti-aliasing) at 720p.

Also, the 512MB is shared on 360, and split on the PS3 (between CPU/GPU).

BrianC62343621d ago

What was with his comment about having one team work on this year's game and another team on the game for next year? Instead just make it so you can download updates to make the game last two years. Enough of this releasing a new game every year.

NASCAR for instance. Do the tracks change year to year? Rarely. Why do they need a new game every year? Make it so the drivers and teams and sponsors can change but the game doesn't. And then add updates gamers can buy and download.

Oh, wait. If EA does this they could no longer milk gamers of their money. Silly me for even thinking of such a thing.

testerg353621d ago

I think its because Sony's OS takes up something like 72megs (use to be 90+ I believe) while the 360's only uses 32megs.

JasonPC360PS3Wii3621d ago

No they don't and the reason no one is finding any links is because everyone (even Droids) know this, every dev has mentioned it from id, Epic, Activivion, EA to 2k games. Use your search engine for a change or was the point of your comment a spin from the PS3s lack of ram? You must be one of those who scream "MYTH" when devs talk about running out of memory (id) search for all these things I mentioned here at N4G.

dinkeldinkse3621d ago

The last two years,EA sports game have sucked anyway.Nascar 08 is probably the worst so I could give a rat's arse what a dev, from that game,said.Good job EA,you haven't made a good sports game since Madden 2006,so don't expect anymore money from me

InMyOpinion3621d ago

Being different is'nt always a good thing. As popular and convenient as it seems to only bash EA for this, it's also stupid. Don't you honestly think they want to optimize their games as much as they can afford time/moneywise? Does Sony have no responsibility at all for this? Other developers have critisized Sonys devkits as well so it's not only EA. In the end it hurts them more than it hurts EA. Even if EA are "lazy", Sony should look over their devkits.

mohib3621d ago

but ps3 has 256 mb of GRR3 at 700mhz and 256mb very fast XDR ram at 3.2ghz tht works by a pointer to pinter technology nad requires very small bus width

x360 has just 512mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz

ps3 has a total system bandwidth of 22g/s + 28g/s =50g/s for main + video .

x360 has only 22g/s in total (video +main)

***************************** ******************************* ********

the eDRAM makes up for the lack of system bandwidth but ONLY AT RESOLUTIONS 720p and LOWER

This is why no game runs at native 1080p on x360

This is why all games look better on ps3 at 1080p and this is why rr7 @1080p couldnt be produced on x360
***************************** ******************************* *******

ps3 has a cache of 2mb+ ==512k for L1 + 256k for each spe(for 7 spes it is 7*256k)

total =2.3 m cache @ 3.2ghz

x360 has just 1 mb of cache @ 1.6 ghz.

the ps3's faster and larger cache allows frequent direct and indirect mapping

mohib3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

Both have same amount of ram

However x360 has very slow 512mb of ram @ 700mhz

ps3 has 256 mb of GDDR3 @ 700mhz and 256mb of XDR @ 3.2 ghz (4.5x the speed)

However ps3 cannot be compared to x360 since it has 2x the cache as x360 mapping at 2x the speed.

ps3 has 2x the bandwidth as x360 (50g/s vs 22g/s)

Ofcourse not to even mention Cell is 10x XENON

***************************** ******************************* ******

BTW ps3 takes up 20m extra RAM only when you are videochatting in GAMES eg WARHAWK...which is fun

However not all games incorporate VIDEOCHATTING INTERFACES

***************************** ******************************* *******

FAST direct mapping + XDR more than compensates for the addition of extra RAM (only during VIDEOCHATTING ingame)

i Shank u3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

just want to point out mohib is posting very similarly to larry007/nasim/whatever other name he makes up(stuntman) you suck nasim

edit @ below; i dont doubt much of what he posts, if not all, is fact. but i also know a fact, that is having multiple accounts on N4G is not allowed, and while i dont care much about that personally, what i care about is he makes multiple comments from multiple accounts, even on the same thread. he doesnt bring any conversation, just posts a bunch of facts everywhere like he's sony's mouth on this website. gets old, and annoying, if someone does it for 360 or whatever system i get just as annoyed. and if his facts are so true, why in the hell have i seen graphics of equal caliber as PS3, on 360, even tho "the Cell is 10x Xenos" according to him. i definitely dont see 10X better grphx on PS3, i dont even see 1.5X better grphx.

Mu5afir3621d ago

The statements he has made are all facts, if anyone disagrees with any of the specs let me know. And I would be happy to clarify it for you.

On a side note:
One of the big "advantages" of the Xenos GPU is that it can do better shader specs then the RSX, or so was stated by Microsoft. But this turns out to be false, as the 22gb bandwidth is not enough to do complex shader ops.

ASSASSYN 36o3621d ago

Thank you tplarkin7 +bubble for you.

tmax3621d ago

You can Stick EA up you *SS. What a bunch of lazy tools.

gta_cb3621d ago

just wanted to say, mohib is nasim, he signed up with another account about 19 hours ago.

REPORT HIM!

WilliamRLBaker3621d ago

yep ps3 has fast ram, too bad its not one unified pool of the faster ram, Because they are both vastly different speeds and a completely different pool it creates a bad bottle neck, and you forgot the 10mbs of edram which is about 50X faster or so from what i've read then the total ram in the ps3.

leon763620d ago

A completly excuse for the VERY LOW QUALITY of EA games (except for Burnout). I agree with MK_Red :"EA SUCKS" and with larry007 : "EA is run by PETER MOORE now
so what do you expect from them."

mike_mgoblue3620d ago

Don't forget, the Football game from 2K Sports also runs at 60 frames per second on Xbox 360, but only 30 frames per second on Playstation 3.

NBA2K8 is built to a multi-platform lowest common denominator with fewer, less complex, polygons per frame of animation. Madden 2008 has FAR more complex polygons with FAR more geometric processing, and much more Artificial Intelligence needed as a result of the fact that there are SO MANY more players on the field in Football. Basketball has a much smaller number of players on the field, and that does make a big difference. As a result, the 275,000,000 polygons per second that the PS3 offers is more than enough to allow FIFA 2008 to run at 60 frames per second; however, the same could not be said for Madden 2008 (or the other Football games—including All-Pro Football 2K8 from 2K Sports). Obviously, the 500,000,000 polygons offered by the Xbox 360 is more than enough to allow 60 frames per second for FIFA 2008, Madden 2008, NCAA Football 2008, and All-Pro Football 2K8.

Let me take the time to explain in more detail.

Here is a statement that EA issued to the public that explained why Madden 2008 and the other Football games on both systems run at 60fps on the Xbox 360, but only 30fps on the Playstation 3, even though other sports games do run at 60fps on both systems.

_____________________________ _____________

In a written statement, Todd Sitrin, EA’s vice president of marketing sports branding, said that its games are tweaked in different ways to fit the different consoles.

“In designing a game, there are all sorts of tradeoffs that include frame rate, visuals, features, AI, etc. Football is an extremely challenging sport to replicate because of the number of people on the field, their interaction, and the scope of the environments. As you can see, every company making a football game this year made a decision that the best experience for the Xbox 360 included 60fps whereas the best experience for the PS3 was 30fps.”
_____________________________ _____________

witchking3620d ago

Look, everyone knew in the last gen that Xbox was more powerful than PS2. BUT, when games got ported over we had similar graphical fidelity, especially any that were released simultaneously. Now in some cases the devs improved the graphics for the Xbox version, but that was at the expense of time (i.e., the Xbox version would come out 3 months after the PS2 version).

The reason for all of this was revenue. More users on PS2 = where you develop for = where you make your product available first.

So in this generation, MSFT purposely beat Sony to market so that they would have the larger install base. And guess what? Posts like this prove that their theory is paying off. Devs are programming to the 360 first because it has the install base, then porting to the PS3, thus negating the graphical edge that the PS3 has. If a dev wants to make use of the PS3's advantages, it takes time... and frankly, you're going to sell more to the larger install base with first to the market product. By the time GRAW2 and RSV made it to the PS3, the majority of customers who wanted those games already have them on the 360.

witchking3620d ago

Look, everyone knew in the last gen that Xbox was more powerful than PS2. BUT, when games got ported over we had similar graphical fidelity, especially any that were released simultaneously. Now in some cases the devs improved the graphics for the Xbox version, but that was at the expense of time (i.e., the Xbox version would come out 3 months after the PS2 version).

The reason for all of this was revenue. More users on PS2 = where you develop for = where you make your product available first.

So in this generation, MSFT purposely beat Sony to market so that they would have the larger install base. And guess what? Posts like this prove that their theory is paying off. Devs are programming to the 360 first because it has the install base, then porting to the PS3, thus negating the graphical edge that the PS3 has. If a dev wants to make use of the PS3's advantages, it takes time... and frankly, you're going to sell more to the larger install base with first to the market product. By the time GRAW2 and RSV made it to the PS3, the majority of customers who wanted those games already have them on the 360.

HarryEtTubMan3620d ago

U haven't seen graphics 1.5x better? Try lair,HS,Drakes fourtune,kz2.Gt5... none of these are capable on 360 in any way...how many more times do the developers have to say it?? Get over ur year old Gears/Biochock corridor Unreal engine graphics that PS3 can run EASILY...already benn said...I don't understand the denial 360 has NOTHING but Gears... take a look at Heavenly Sword cool guy

+ Show (22) more repliesLast reply 3620d ago
MikeJonesOK3621d ago

what was the EA again? oh those lazy bastards!

MK_Red3621d ago

True. They are really lazy.

EA should change its name to LA (Lazy Arts).

Bloodmask3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

You weren't saying that last gen when all the XBOX owners were getting PS2 ports just like the article stated. And you know what the games actually looked and ran better on the XBOX.

Kind of says something doesn't it. And since you say EA is "lazy" I offer you this flag for your avatar.

doshey3621d ago

i may be a sony fanboy but i had to laugh at that, but ea is lazy

MK_Red3621d ago

Nice pic but Saying EA is lazy is being Sony fanboy?

What I meant was that last gen consoles were not this much different thus developing for both at the same time was easy but now most devs works on different version totally individually and have to delay the non lead version (Which becomes timed-exclusive). Games like Haze and UT3 have PS3 as lead and developing for 360 takes real time just like developing the PS3 version of games with 360 as lead takes much more time.

ShiftyLookingCow3621d ago

Bloodmask, I have seen that pic a zillion times.

BenzMoney3621d ago

That picture is missing something!

7. Microsoft must've paid them to say that.

Ri0tSquad3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

Sony has there sports game running at 1080p 60fps

2k games has there sport games running at 1080p 60fps & has Oblivion running better on the Playstation 3 then the Xbox 360 did

GRAW 2 proved that there was nothing wrong with ps3 with a great port

GT5 looking beautiful most realistic looking racing game ever running at 60fps 1080p very smooth.

Then comes Dirt which runs a whole lot smoother then the xbox 360 version did.

Then we get news from the people making half-life 2 saying all this about the ps3 and its optimizing nd so on.

And EA has the ps3 version of madden running at 30fps with washed out colors and you ignorant fanboys are really trying to tell me that EA isn't being lazy with this game? Do you realize how many games EA has made on the PS3 and they all just turn out to be garbage ports? Yes 2k had there game running at 30fps but they didn't cry about it they just stepped it up another level. Wow seriously theres no point arguing with some of you guys you try to make everyone else who who's just stating the obvious just a fanboy its really sad.

SlappyMcTaint3621d ago

Boy, I'm worried about them not doing a good ASSCAR game!! They fit right in with ASSCAR: the lowest common denominator racing where innovation is quickly stifled. Sounds like EA's philosophy to me.

FUUCK EA!!

s8anicslayer3621d ago

that is one good excuse for not wanting to do their job!wow

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3621d ago
Bloodmask3621d ago (Edited 3621d ago )

Blame Sony they are the ones who made the hardware not developer friendly. Which is completely their fault. Maybe they should have focused on great development tools instead of making sure they got the Bluray drive in the PS3. Priorities..eh??

The developers of GRAW2 did have a problem that is why the game was delayed over 6 months. As well as RS3:Vegas almost a year.

All-Pro also runs at 30FPS on the PS3 which is made by 2K. The games that can run at 60 FPS on both systems is probably bc they are not processor intense.

You guys constantly place the blame on developers being lazy. Paid off...BlahBla Blah. Face the facts. The machines are about equal in power except the PS3 architecture is a major headache for developers.

IE, it will take more resources and development time to get "the same" results on PS3 as 360. Notice I didn't say "better" results. And for almost all 3rd parties it isn't woth it bc the PS3 install base is so small thus they will see minimal revenue. Thus PS3 fans will continue to get the "crumbs" of jumbled code and/or crappy ports= Blame Sony not anyone else.

DarkArcani3621d ago

If it's so hard to develop for why don't they just not develop for the console?
Blame Sony, yeah that makes sense. Blame Sony for being forward thinking and taking risks. In 10 years if MS decides to adopt a cell like architecture to use in their next console will you still think so badly on Sony?
Maybe Sony's architecture is easy to develop for, just certain developers are to use to older ways.

Relin3621d ago

You won't find a single 360 title outside of the XBLA that is made using XNA, since you can do the same stuff BETTER with C++ and the 360's SDK. It's obvious that Microsoft did indeed design good dev tools, but then again, they're a software company: why does that surprise people?

Sony has made the superior hardware (though they should have been more open to suggestions from devs) and they're playing catch-up with dev tools. The PS3 development community seems to be more coherent than those who develop primarily on the 360, so the lack of Sony-proprietary dev tools hasn't affected most.

You blame Sony for their lack of development tools (due to Sony being a hardware company); I blame Microsoft for their obviously shoddy hardware (due to Microsoft being a software company). We can carry on all day playing the blame game, but all you'll realize is that neither company got it right: Nintendo did that.

MikeGdaGod3621d ago

WHAT!!!!!!!

i'd love to point out all of your ridiculous statements but i think deep down inside you know there's no way the 360 can compete.

if you don't think the devs benefit from working with the 360's hardware longer, your just an plain idiot.

BrianC62343621d ago

Sony didn't design the PS3 to be difficult for developers to make games for. They designed the PS3 to be a powerful console for five years. That's why it has Blu-ray too. DVD is getting too small. Sure it's more complicated right now if you just want to port a 360 game over. I'd say though the PS3 has the longest about of time left on the market. The 360 won't be around in another three years. I doubt the Wii will be either. Unless casual gamers buy lots of games. Game developers will find it tough to make a living off of casual games.

beans3621d ago

I'm sure there will be games made using XNA and MS has bigger plans for it then Xbox live arcade!

sticky doja3621d ago

Do you honestly believe the 360 won't be around in 3 years? I hope you aren't serious. Also in 5 years I will want a new next gen system that will blow the 360 and PS3 out of the water, not the same system for the next 8 or 9 years, I'm a tech junkie myself, not one peice of hardware I had 5 years ago I still use today.

BrianC62343621d ago

Yes Sticky Doja, I do believe the 360 won't be around in three years. It wasn't designed to last five years. Microsoft rushed it out to beat Sony. Must be on the market before everyone. But they forgot, Sega beat Sony out. Sony released the PS2 after Sega released their console and look at what happened to Sega.

I think Microsoft should have waited a year and included an HD DVD drive in the 360. Right now disc size might not seem that important but you can bet it will be soon.

I remember when the PS2 came out. Games were still on CD. Who would ever need alost 5GB of space? Early games came out on the different types of discs. My early games are black discs. After a while though everything was DVD.

Now DVD is just getting too small. You can make games fit on DVD but it means lower quality graphics and sound. Blu-ray gives the developer all that extra space. If you're into HD everything do you really want to drop the quality?

The next Xbox will be out within two years. The 360 might last a year longer than the Xbox did, which was about three years. You say you'll want a new console by then. That might be okay for you but game developers don't want to learn new consoles every three years. Five years is better.

sticky doja3621d ago

On the comment about SEGA, SEGA didn't have near the financial assets Microsoft does, Microsoft can take a huge hit and keep on ticking, they won't be leaving the game world any time soon.

As far as disc size, no problems yet 2 years after release, I'm glad they came out in '05 and I didn't have to wait an extra year and pay $200.00 more for the HD DVD drive you think should have gone in, the result of not waiting means the 360 has a ton of killer apps that are already here and many more right down the way, at a good price for the console.

I think if disc size does become an issue developers will be able to accomidate, the only problem I can see that might occur would be with online multiplayer games, but I have faith that developers can figure that good stuff out, when and if the time comes that they will need to.

Also if the 360 did only last another 3 years, which it Will surpass that, but if it only lasted that, that would still give it a solid 5 years, the timeframe you feel is adequate for a game console.

i Shank u3621d ago

for all of you who think ps3 has much more graphically then 360; do you remember last gen? ps2 came out a year after dreamcast, but from the beginning of ps2, you could tell it was a better system graphically, no matter how much more time devs had with dreamcast beforehand. same thing happened a year later, when xbox came out. this gen, the ps3 has YET to prove itself graphically superior, and we are at the point where it should have. last gen, dreamcast had 16mb of ram vs. ps2 32mb. there was clearly an advantage for ps2, as there was for xbox, which had 64 mb.
this gen, the specs are pretty equal, ps3 having the better processor, 360 having the better grphx card and unified memory w/eDRAM, and thus, the results are proving to be pretty equal as well. the proof is in the pudding, as the cliche goes, and anyone who says either system is going to have significantly better grphx is just plain reaching for hope.

Relin3621d ago

I'm sure they have bigger plans for it, and they've proven that with how much they've put into the library and language and free tools. I've been using it for about six months and I can easily say its a dream for any indie developer.

C#, however, has some inherent problems that prevent it from hedging C++ out of big studios (and I use the word "problems" loosely, as they're more insurmountable challenges). The garbage collection used automatically in C# is great for programmers who hate dealing with memory consumption, but professional programmers can do the same job manually with much less overhead. That alone makes it fairly useless for full console titles, but excellent for arcade titles.

witchking3620d ago

Dudes, the 360 will be here in 3 years. HOWEVER, it won't be the same 360 you can buy today. Hello? The 360 you buy today isn't the same 360 you bought when it launched 2 years ago. They purposely built a CUSTOMIZABLE/SWAPPABLE machine.

2 years ago you got no HDMI and 20 gb hard drive.

Now you have HDMI and 120 gb HD. Soon the 65nm chips will be in the machine.

In 3 years we'll see a 360 Ultimate with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (depending on which ones wins, if either of them do) and 250gb HD and who knows what else. That was the point of building a machine that could be customized... they can keep reissuing upgrades to it. They upped the RAM to 512mb based on developer request, and the processor and graphics are top notch. Will an Xbox 720 come to market? Sure... but not until MSFT wrings what they can out of the design decisions they made around allowing customizability in this generation.

I'm still on my first 360 but seriously getting tempted to go get an Elite. The only thing holding me back is that I think they'll have a high def player to it once we see which way the wind blows on that war AND they can get it in there for under the PS3 price.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3620d ago
Lord Anubis3621d ago

Things will change, PS3 will lead if they want to get games out in time. Right now EA is making easy money on half baked games.

CRIMS0N_W0LF3621d ago

Flame bait.

Who cares about Splinter Cell and EA games they suck :P (Except for Burnout and Battlefield)