Top
960°

PS3 Has 'Advantage In Performance' Over Xbox 360 Say Developers

PS3 and Xbox 360 are the only high definition consoles on the market until Nintendo launches Wii U sometime next year, but have developers done all they can with these machines? Not quite, and certainly PS3 has more to offer at this stage than Xbox 360, according to developers IndustryGamers spoke with.

Read Full Story >>
industrygamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2902235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

Well then, its a pity that multiplatform titles use the 360 as the base general performance model. Also pretty sure that was Sony's goal from the beginning, to get devs to work to get more out of the PS3 so that later in the console's cycle more could be gotten from it.

This console gen was ill-conceived. Focused on the wrong things.

donniebaseball2235d ago

You're right - a lot of developers work based on 360 and then port to PS3, BUT that's changed somewhat in the last couple years where I think we've seen more titles actually built with PS3 in mind first.

darthv722235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

When you start on the 360 and port to ps3 they are having to try and compensate for the way the memory is laid out. Same with the cpu/gpu performance.

Things come out better for both if the ps3 is lead. I think it has been proven that when the ps3 is lead, 360 ports are almost the same due to how the 360 can manipulate its resources around.

ApplEaglElephant2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

That PS3 has more power. we even had testings done by IBM which said PS3 has a huge edge.

As the director of SE said, you just need dev spending more time to squeeze that extra juice out of PS3.

we already seen what PS3 can do from all the exclusives, unparalleled by multiplats or 360 exclusives.

irepbtown2235d ago

I think it's better to not port.
It would be better to start from scratch on each console to maximize the overall quality.

darthv722235d ago

When I think of "huge edge" I am thinking of a 100mhz 486 to a 1000mhz P3. That is an example of huge.

The 360 has not had a true dedicated developer with a 360 only dedicated engine to work with. MS didnt want that from what has been reported. They wanted a developer friendly platform that could seamlessly produce games that could be played on it as well as windows.

Anyways, someone like ND and their dedicated engine for the PS3 could do wonders on the 360. Yet that wont happen any time soon.

DatNJDom812235d ago Show
BrianC62342235d ago

I think a lot of developers do start on the PS3 now but they develop game engines for their games and make all of them the same. The engines don't take advantage of the PS3. It's all about making the games look equal.

thorstein2235d ago

More breaking news: Barak Obama has defeated John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election. Stay tuned for more up to the minute news...

WetN00dle692235d ago

@ApplEaglElephant

Slight edge over the 360 yes no doubt BUT a huge edge as you so call it far from it!

ApplEaglElephant2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

You just said 360 is developer friendly which I agree. This is why you don't need dedicated developer. Multiplat developer can get as much as possible from 360.

On the other hand, PS3 isnt developer friendly. Which is the reason why you need dedicated devs. Again, there is what IBM said also.

You should know by now 360 is very close to PC and that it is very multiplat friendly for devs.even Carmack said that, you can get more out of PS3 "but you have to go out of your way". meaning you gotta put in way more work.

360 had/have dedicated developers. "360 just need a right dev" is a weak excuse for 6 years old console.

BattleAxe2235d ago

Nothing new, I've known this since November 2006.

MaxXAttaxX2234d ago

@Godmars290

"This console gen was ill-conceived. Focused on the wrong things."

- Totally agree.

StanLee2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

Am I the only one not surprised that both sources quoted work for Japanese gaming companies or that the headline misrepresents what they said? John Carmack, Todd Howard and countless others say differently and they're XBox fanboys. Right, I got it. ;-)

MaxXAttaxX2234d ago

Sorry, try again.
John Carmack said PS3 has more peak power/performance but it's more complicated to use.

So now we're back to where we were. With the first comments in the thread being correct :P

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2234d ago
GribbleGrunger2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

yes, that is exactly why Sony designed the PS3 the way it did. they knew that eventually other devs wouldn't want devs like ND show them how to make games. they have egos and we are now at the point were egos have taken too much of a hit.

TheDareDevil2235d ago

Wait, what?
Not sure if serious.

GribbleGrunger2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

why wouldn't i be serious? it was their strategy with the PS2 and it's there strategy with the PS3. you can even google Sony's comments on this matter if you like. you can either take them at their word or consider it luck that they always win generations

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

"So it's a kind of--I wouldn't say a double-edged sword--but it's hard to program for," Hirai continued, "and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."

edit: i was telling people this was their strategy before this comment was ever made. the next generation will be different because it will be the 'end' game. Sony are aiming for a ten year lifecycle without a crossover with the PS3, that's why they invested so much in it and why it has blu-ray

kingnick2235d ago

GribbleGrunger that is just more Sony rhetoric.

The truth is the PS3 was a poorly designed home entertainment unit that was a vehicle for Blu-ray and Cell, neither of which were needed for gaming.

With savings from dropping Blu-ray and Cell Sony could have offered far more RAM that would have left the 360 in the dust and provided a noticeable gulf between the PS3 and the 360.

Instead we got Blu-ray that adds little and the Cell which just increases development costs with little benefit.

Sony will design a more generic console next gen they can't afford to have another poorly designed game machine or they will just lose further support from developers.

Septic2235d ago

Wow Gribble, you seriously cannot tell me you actually believe that Sony garble? You really think that Sony deliberately set out to make developing for their games more difficult?

They actually just opted for a more complex but more powerful system.

Do you really think they will go down the same route with the PS4? Not a chance.

Computersaysno2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

@ Kingnick....i have to agree with a lot of what you said. You put it very bluntly and risk getting hit up badly with disagrees and vote downs but your comment is not inflammatory in that it holds a fair amount of truth.

You didn't pull your punches, i give you kudos for that!

A large part of PS3's game rendering hardware is not ideal for games. Indeed, using CELL to supplement graphics rendering is a poor imbalance of a system, and rather defeats the purpose of having separate dedicated chips.

I mean- the whole point of computers having separate GPU chip is because it is a dedicated and specialised totally at doing graphics tasks. When you have to shift such tasks onto a CPU architecture not very suited to said tasks something has to be wrong surely? Fundamental design issue.

Had sony tossed in any old dual core CPU and concentrated better on the memory structure of the machine and especially the GPU performance there is no question PS3 would be a more powerful gaming machine. These are the crucial factors.

The fact PS3 came out a whole year later than 360 but does not really exhibit a massive increase in performance should indicate to everyone there were mistakes. It came out with tighter memory contraints than 360 and a less advanced GPU design. How was this allowed to happen a year on?

Just look at xbox and Ps2, xbox came out a year later and managed to pack twice the RAM, undoubtably more power overall.

DigitalAnalog2235d ago

I thought the PS3 was designed to have 2 Cell's working in parallel? It was simply due to the manufacturing cost that they had to make final adjustments which then resulted in the RSX you see today.

@kingnick

"The truth is the PS3 was a poorly designed home entertainment unit that was a vehicle for Blu-ray and Cell, neither of which were needed for gaming."

Then the PS3 should never be able to output games by that reasoning. Gaming is just an interactive medium, and it's premise is based on the "gameplay" and not the hardware it's supposed to be running on.

GribbleGrunger2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

well clearly i thought of the rhetoric before Sony because as i've said, i talked about this nearly a year before Sony said that over at another forum. you have to think like a business and not like a gamer

i mean, people believe MSs rhetoric about the potential of Kinect quite readily and can't see THATS the BS

ProjectVulcan2235d ago

'I thought the PS3 was designed to have 2 Cell's working in parallel? It was simply due to the manufacturing cost that they had to make final adjustments which then resulted in the RSX you see today.'

Not precisely accurate. RSX is the most expensive single processing component to build a PS3 today now that CELL manufacturing has been refined so the yields are good. The yields were poor that made it expensive initially, but they were always going to improve. RSX is a larger chip, so it costs more to make. The dual CELL configuration was almost certainly ditched (not exactly a 'final adjustment' to use a totally different graphics processor from what was intended) because CELL is simply not remotely as good at graphic tasks as a dedicated GPU. It would be utterly rubbish at most important graphics tasks versus a proper hardware accelerator.

'Gaming is just an interactive medium, and it's premise is based on the "gameplay" and not the hardware it's supposed to be running on.'

Well.......what can i say to that? Games are entirely technology driven! They only exist because of the hardware they run on! Its not really an argument that disproves anything kingnick said is it...

gamingdroid2235d ago

I gotta agree with kingnick, vulcanproject and Computersaysno.

It's [email protected] clear that a machine that cost significantly more, is released a year afterwards only produces games more or less on par with the competition there are issues.

It doesn't take a genius programmer to have "what the heck?" moments when looking at the PS3 architecture.

zu4G2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

and just imagine guys if all multiplatform looking good as GOD OF WAR 3/Uncharted 3 that would be awesome..
blame it to the developers, i guess all they want is easy money, and of course it requires lot of time though

skrug2235d ago

@Computersaysno

The PS3 was schedule for Spring 2006 release but was delayed because of blu-ray diode shortages.

Computersaysno2235d ago

Yeah it was delayed, but even if it hit its release target it would have been out months and months after 360 had launched. Fact is it came out a year later though in the end.

RSX was eventually downgraded even further from its original specs. When it was touted as 550mhz core some analysis suggested that Xenos would still hold the edge despite only running 500mhz because it has a more modern architecture. This proved to be even truer as it became clear RSX was tuned downwards to 500mhz and 650mhz memory instead of the 700mhz specced earlier for final versions.

Ati beat Nvidia to the punch far sooner. When they said that this unified design in 360 (worlds first) was the future, Nvidia denied that and said they didn't agree. But they said this because they knew RSX was lagging behind. As they lied through their teeth they already had the early designs on the board for their own DX10 unified chips!

By the time Ps3 finally got its ass on the market we had a brand new ginormous jump from high end graphics processors. When 360 arrived, it was cutting edge. When Ps3 arrived, it was already dated as Nvidia launched the Geforce 8800 series.

Delays hurt Ps3, bad design decisions, getting a dated design off Nvidia.

Imagine how much better PS3 would have been if Nvidia had supplied one of their newest 8800 designs for PS3 instead of an old gen one!

MrBeatdown2235d ago

@gamingdroid

"It's [email protected] clear that a machine that cost significantly more, is released a year afterwards only produces games more or less on par with the competition there are issues."

It's [email protected] clear that a machine that cost significantly more cost significantly more because it came with significantly more...

- WiFi (60GB model)
- Blu-Ray
- Bigger hard drives (60GB model)
- HDMI

All of those are features that the original 360 didn't have that lead to the PS3's higher cost.

I'm surprised that something this basic actually needs to be pointed out. If you want to bring cost into the equation, at least make some attempt to base the comparison on costs associated with performance.

gamingdroid2234d ago

***All of those are features that the original 360 didn't have that lead to the PS3's higher cost.***

You do know the PS3 originally was reported to cost almost a $1000 to manufacture?

It's clear to me that Sony's spending was all in the wrong places.

***If you want to bring cost into the equation, at least make some attempt to base the comparison on costs associated with performance.***

What performance? There is none!

None of those features have yielded any better performance, new game experiences or anything. It was simply because Playstations' success went to Ken Kutaragi head and he started making all these bad decisions.

If you can barely tell the difference between a PS3 and Xbox 360, what does that tell you?

MrBeatdown2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

@gamingdroid

***
"You do know the PS3 originally was reported to cost almost a $1000 to manufacture?"
***

And how much of that was related to performance? That's what this article is about. It's stupid to throw out costs and say something is wrong because it's not better, as if a higher price should instantly equate to better graphics and AI, when not every feature of a system is intended to improve those aspects of a console (like Wifi, Blu-Ray, HDMI, and bigger hard drives).

***
"What performance? There is none!

None of those features have yielded any better performance, new game experiences or anything."
***

And that's my whole damn point. Does every last feature of a console have to yield superior graphics or processing capabilities to be worth including? No. Yet you treat the costs associated with those features as if they do apply to a discussion of graphics. It's ridiculous.

An Arcade 360 is cheaper than an Elite model? Is the Elite model supposed to offer superior graphics? Was it a waste of time and effort for Microsoft offer a hard drive instead of better performance in a $400 360?

***
"If you can barely tell the difference between a PS3 and Xbox 360, what does that tell you?"
***

It tells me PS3 and 360 had equally capable graphical hardware. What's your point? Is there some substantial difference in long-term cost in how Sony and MS reached that point? Just because you think Sony's priorities weren't straight when it comes to what they spent their money on, doesn't mean there are "issues" as you put it. Those priorities have lead to a system that is as successful, as capable, and seemingly as profitable as the 360, yet still manages to offer Blu-Ray and established it as the successor to DVD. So, what exactly is the "issue"?

baodeus2234d ago

@gribbleGrunger

""We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explain Hirai,

so why Sony now want to make their next gen more developers friendly?

Khronikos2234d ago

It's funny, because everyone acts like Sony could just throw in a 8800 series card and everything would be joyous.

You are forgetting one thing: heat and cost. Does anybody remember the thing called RRoD that ate up pretty much 100% of all original 3602. The numbers will never be released any time soon but we can all bet that at least 10 million systems were eventually affected. Sony also has its problems. My PS3 is hitting the bucket so I got a slim. If they would have went 8800 I bet you my bottom dollar those failure rates would have been even worse. There was just simply not enough time to squeeze more power into the PS3 without making it absolutely massive in size.

Computersaysno2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

I never imagined Sony would just throw in an 8800 chip, but they sure changed plans to incorporate RSX mid development.

I also never suggest they should have squeezed an 8800GTX in there or anything, just a chip based on their newer unified architecture. When you make a new architecture you don't just design it and knock it out within a few months, you have the plans on the board years beforehand, but at the very least 18 months.

Ati managed it. I mean they had a unified GPU inside 360 18 months before they got one out for PC. It is difficult to blame Ati for 360's cooling problems, they would have told microsoft what should be dissipated.

I think it wouldn't have been so difficult to start off with the 8800GTS 640 and imagine it maybe halved in specs. It would be a bigger die than RSX- but not massively and it wouldn't swallow a lot more power.

For example they could have gone 48 shaders, 24 TMUs, maybe 12 ROPS, 192 bit bus. Think more like cut down 8800GS, than GTX. Such a chip would have been brilliant compared to the competition. The 192 bit bus alone would give a huge advantage as it would have meant 768mb RAM for the machine.

Heck even if they had just used a 192 bit bus for RSX it would have been a lot better. PS3 would gain 4 ROPS, a big boost in bandwidth which is often cited as a problem, and the machine would get 384mb/384mb System/Video RAM. 360 would have been the one with the memory deficits then.

insomnium22234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

OMG Mrbeatdown. I just LOVE your comments. There's NOTHING to add you covered everything perfectly. Without PS3's premium price we wouldn't have had a short war in HD formats but instead it would've gone on for months and even years.

Now we all have affodable BD players and movies thanks to the end of the format war.

@Gribble

I have been saying the same thing ( about'easy to program for') for YEARS. That is exactly how PS2 went down too right so what's the problem with people here really?

Look at PS2 games at launch vs GOW 2 for example. Pretty much the same thing will be apparent in the end of PS3's life too. X360 has been pretty stagnant since the first Geow in 2007 and I'm not saying it out of spite either. I'm just saying as it is.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 2234d ago
gamingdroid2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

***Also pretty sure that was Sony's goal from the beginning, to get devs to work to get more out of the PS3 so that later in the console's cycle more could be gotten from it.***

You mean, to hold back development by making it harder for developers to work with the PS3?

"We[Sony] don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Kaz Hirai, Executive Deputy President of Sony.

http://news.cnet.com/sony-p...

How's that worked for Sony this generation?

That is like the most idiotic plan ever conceived! You want as early as possible to use your advantages to sell your product, not wait until the competition is entrenched and then throw out a bone.

If you ask any "real" programmer, they will tell you they want better tools and easier to program for hardware to make their lives easier so they can focus on developing the product and not fight the machine.

2235d ago
kikizoo2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

"How's that worked for Sony this generation?
"

hmm yes ! despite biased medias, viral marketing and lies, they have won the bluray battle, they have the best exclusives, more, and are selling more consoles and games than ms, so...yes.

but it's not the question here, 360 devs say a thing that fanboys don't want to accept since 2006 (despite uncharted, kz, etc) : "ps3 has advantage in performance"

btk2235d ago

Taurus Excremente

They messed up with the dev tools side. It cost them quite a bit. The excuse is stupid. The machine is more complex, and the tools had to catch up. Now that the tools libraries is on speed it will deliver better performance. But if I was a dev and that was the strategy then I would give Sony the middle finger.

Godmars2902235d ago

Sony really hurt themselves more with the price point, the "Let Them Eat Cake" statement more than anything MS has managed to do. Nearing the end of this gen and the Xbox 360's "victory" is only a paper tiger between the Wii's sales numbers and the current less than 3m gap with the PS3.

It really comes as ridiculous to me that MS has failed to really deliver a definitive win this gen despite advantages given/taken/stolen by them. That their in-house support is in such shambles.

Tuxedo_Mask2235d ago

Tomonobu Itagaki recently said that the most difficult programming experience he had with a game was Tecmo Bowl for the NES. In the old days, mulitplatform games were specifically made for the NES, SNES, and Genesis and utilized the strengths for each game, even if they were all the same title.

The advancement of game development, brought on by the use of the CD with the original PlayStation, has lead to lazier developers who make one version of a game and make the minimum amount of tweaks in order to get it to play on another system. Case in point: Bayonetta for PS3 and FFXIII for Xbox360. There are some exceptions, but the days of having a specific version of a game developed for your console are gone. Welcome to the age of DLC and lazy developers.

The PS3 may be harder to develop for, but one advantage that results from that fact is the lack of shovelware on the system. There are some bad games on the PS3, but they had to work hard to develop them for it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2235d ago
Old McGroin2235d ago

Think I read somewhere that devs preferred to develop on the 360 because the (I'm no tech head so excuse me if my terminology is off) architecture used in the 360 was very similiar to Windows and so devs were already mostly familiar with how to design on it, whereas the PS3 was all new so more difficult to figure out.

kingnick2235d ago

The hardware architecture of a PC and the Xbox360 are completely different with both having pros and cons.

The development tools are very similar in some regards because portability is a big selling point for MS who want developers to release their games for Windows AND Xbox.

Old McGroin2234d ago

@ kingnick

Ah, that's what I meant! :)

k-dillinger2235d ago

your right it is focused on all the wrong things like xboxlive this is the only console gen where ppl brought a console because of the social aspect rather then the main purpose which is games they care about connecting with friends more then playing the actual games that's why micro doesn't care about exclusives they live of third party because their fan base really doesn't care as long as they are connecting to friends.

WANNAGETHIGH2235d ago

360 spoilt this Gen of gaming >:(

buddymagoo2234d ago

I'd say the DVD. Imagine if the PS2 and original Xbox only played CDs, that would have held back gaming just like the DVD has.

EarthLover2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

Oh boy here we go again, the PS3 does NOT have "huge" power advantage, IBM is only interested in CPUs and that is what they were talking about, the PS3 CPU is indeed more powerful than the 360s, however everything else on the 360 is more powerful than on the PS3, the memory configuration, the dev tools, the gpu, everything. If you go back to right after launch lots of tech studies were done and they all proved 360 had a slight advantage overall when running game code. PS3 is better for folding at home type stuff and HD en/decoding.(bluray playing)

FlintGREY2235d ago

Show me a game that proves the 360 is more powerful than the PS3....that's NOT a half-assed ported multiplat.

stvn_k262235d ago

yeah right!! whatever makes you sleep at night!!

2235d ago
Snakefist302235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

That comment makes u look like an idiot!!!PS3 exclusives looks 10 times better than 360 games.

Ulf2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

The memory configuration of the 360 is *more flexible*. It is NOT "more powerful".

Believing the cruddy bandwidth and unified configuration of the 360 to be "more powerful" than the high bandwidth split (like a PC) RAM of the PS3 is a common misconception. Given a choice, the PS3 RAM is superior, even if it takes slightly more skill (not much, really) to utilize properly. Even PC fanbots will back up dedicated VRAM as being superior to the unified RAM of the 360 -- and they'd be correct in doing so.

Dark_king2235d ago

@Ulf not to mention the 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz is quite fast allowing for it and the cell to work very well together.

2235d ago
MysticStrummer2234d ago

If you can compare the best looking exclusives on both systems and not see the PS3's clear advantage, nothing anyone says will convince you. @Strobe - Cross Game Chat? lol Hold onto that life preserver, kid.

2234d ago
+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2234d ago
megacowdung2235d ago

Yeah i didn't quite understand why they used 360 more, if u really find out how to use the ps3 to its full potential games would look and feel amazing. Just look at the ps3 exclusives.

morkendo2234d ago

PS3 Has 'Advantage In Performance' Over Xbox 360 Say Developers

it SHOULD READ

Every console has its "ADVANTAGE IN PERFORMANCE"

50Terabytespersec2234d ago

you'd be a fool to think the 360 was designed for longterm.
looking at the games and PC technology it was designed to supplement the losses in the PC market , it is sad that the millions spent on adds have done nothing but push PC games into consoles.
With the PS3 if you look at the games that are Console type.
You can see that the PS3 has at least 3 years left.
Games like:
GT5 can definitely improve !
So can God of War 3,
Wipeout HD
Metal Gear
and others.
The skys the limit were talking about 50GB and a harddrive and 7 SPU's...

TheXgamerLive2234d ago

Attention lil wannabe's. Both systems have somethimng that's advantage over the other.
There's things the Xbox 360 can do well over the ps3. Hell you should know this from RAGE and it's developer, remember him? Ha Ha. Gears 3:)

Even so, both are quite different and can do different things, depends on who's the dev and what he wants to do.

Lets movie from this candy level minded BS. Play your consoles games and enjoy and for the gamers and magazines who make up this BS....well you know what I think.

fr0sty2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

Sony's biggest mistake was making that extra power so damn hard to squeeze out of the system that few developers (even to this day) bother to do it, resulting in poor multiplatform ports. Not to say PS3 is even more powerful in all areas either, each system has their strengths and weaknesses. PS3 definitely has the more powerful CPU, 360 the GPU (Ps3 can make up for that some by letting Cell render the geometry while letting RSX focus on texturing/shading, so in the end PS3 does have a slightly better CPU/GPU when it comes to rendering certain things. It also has more bandwidth to work with between devices, and since it has a split memory pool the CPU doesn't drain the GPU's memory bandwidth when it is accessing it's own pool of RAM.) and a faster optical drive, PS3 has the standard hard drive so devs can count on being able to stream data from the (much faster than DVD) hard drive in every game... There are trade offs. In the end, yes, I'd say PS3 does have a bit more under the hood, but it's not just an end all be all statement. There are things the Xbox 360 will always be able to do better, such as having a little more RAM left over since it's operating system isn't so damn bloated. I still don't understand why Sony struggles so hard to code up it's OS... they need to hire better programmers.

I just hope they learned their lesson that the "code up a barebones OS to get the system out earlier and then try to upgrade it with FW updates from there" approach does not work. This is why we don't get cross game chat... the early PS3 games used up every bit of RAM they could and didn't leave enough room for things like that, so they couldn't add it in after the fact. 360 always had the devs setting aside the RAM needed for that from day one, so every game had to comply with the memory requirements. That really came back to haunt Sony in the end.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2234d ago
lorianguy2235d ago

Well that was Sony's plan for the start so they could have their 10-year life cycle.

EarthLover2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

NO that is the excuse Sony marketing gave the public, even before the PS3 launched, it was known that the PS3 was designed with the Cell because of its efficiency in HD encoding and decoding, the PS3 was designed as a bluray player 1st and a game console 2nd.

Rhythmattic2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

" the PS3 was designed as a bluray player 1st and a game console 2nd."

NO, that was the excuse given by Sony PS haters..

Zool 082235d ago

Tell us something we don't already know

HappyWithOneBubble2235d ago

I know right. It's a shame devs didn't take more advantage of PS3 power. Instead we got crappy ports.

kingnick2235d ago

You do realise that unless you code a game ffrom the ground up for the PS3 and PS3 alone you can't use anywhere near it's potential power.

This is Sony's fault, as limiting yourself to one console would be suicide for many third party developers.

PC <> Xbox360 are easy to develop and port between, while the PS3 is uncle tom.

EarthLover2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

What we know is that it is best to lead on PS3 because if you lead on 360 there are certain things the PS3 cannot do, and you will get an enferior port. However if you lead on PS3, you can go all out because the 360 can handle anything you do on PS3.

This proves the 360 is equal if not more powerful. Personally i was convinced after playing Forza 4 for a week.

The guys in the article are talking about performance growth, PS3 has more room to improve, as seen still in many multiplatform games, the graphics are still subpar to 360s.

Cenobia2235d ago

Why would you be convinced the 360 has superior performance after playing Forza 4? It doesn't even have anything to do with your argument.

I could give you a laundry list of PS3 exclusive games that look better than multiplatform (and most 360 exclusive)games too. And then you say PS3 graphics are sub-par? WTF are you even talking about?

stvn_k262235d ago

ohh god please send him some guidance from above!! after playing forza 4 for a week?? dude just show some respect for yourself really!! It's the third forza game on the xbox and it doesn't even match GT5 graphics!! I think you're gonna tell me that gears of war 3 dethroned uncharted 3 graphics right??

2235d ago
MysticStrummer2234d ago

You're convinced of 360's superiority after playing a game that doesn't look as good as it's closest PS3 counterpart...? Very odd.

leemo192234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

describes your comment
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2234d ago
MrDead2235d ago

We know this, it doesn't mean you can't enjoy both.