According to the Ubisoft development team working on Rainbow Six: Vegas, there may be not only be no increase in quality in the game when ported to the PlayStation 3 but we might actually see a drop in quality.
unless it's b/c a game was developed in 1080P for them and only 720P for us, b/c the Xbox 360 does have more available system memory to be used how it's best needed and more readily available and easier to work with, thus the cell isn't going to look as good when using like terms, ex. both in 1080P. Sorry sony fans, it's the truth but your system will still look ok, so it's alright. Having fun is the true name of the game. Besides, ps3 will have other features added to other games as time matures the system and becomes more comfortable with developers. ubisoft is showing the truth in today's next gen.gaming and it's all good really for everyone but especially for the Xbox 360 and MS. It seems more and more developers after having worked with both systems are saying this, unless sony paid not to.
i love Ubisoft
both consoles will have outstanding games, graphically and playability wise, if you can afford both, great, if not, either one will be just as entertaining. Competition is good for the consumer.
So the developers are being lazy and trying to copy and paste the 360's strengths over the PS3. This is utter garbage for a developer to not take advangtage of the strengths of both systems. I would also like to say that its distastesful for one developer to take shots at other consoles. There job is not to critize, but to use there best efforts and develop to that consoles strength. I've seen video of Call of Duty for both consoles and they look nearly idenical. Whatever the Edge is posting is sounding like total rubbish. There is no excuse for taking shots at another console and not putting your best effort into creating the best game you can develop for that system. These kind of statements don't sound like the statements a professional company would make, so for right now I'm looking for a direct link to this. That's my 2 cents.
agreed. furthermore, to say that the PS3 is inferior to the 360, after admitting that the PS3's version of the same game is a port (instead of being built from the ground up to take advantages of its capabilities) is a bit far-fetched and biased, especially when the developer pretty much conceded to not taking advantage of the PS3's hardware. to pour a little bit more sauce of untruth on this whole thing, the article refers to the misconceived statement that Assassins Creed's AI is better on the 360 than the PS3. Ubisoft cleared that up a week or two ago with "While the method for distributing AI load is different on each platform, the AI code itself is the same. Players will experience the exact same crowd results on PS3 and Xbox360."
If you guys are willing to front the bill to have Ubi start from scratch to get the ideal PS3 version, I'm sure they'd do it. If not, than you must realize you're morons...devs are a company, and the PS3 is a spendy platform to develop for. The Cell is nice, but because of the difficulty, time, and money it takes to program for it, you're dumb enough to blame the devs. You should be pissed at Sony for using the Cell (again, it's a nice chip, it's just not made for games)
4.2 what are you talking about footing the bill? Ubisoft could just as easily develop for the PS3 and port to the 360. its not my fault that i demand the best for the money i choose to spend. it's not my fault that Ubisoft would rather take a self-admitted easier road to producing their games, and subsequently deprive their unbiased fanbase the epitome of quality that they can conceivably achieve. how many multi-platform XBox games were graphically lacking because developers preferred developing for the PS2 and porting to the XBox instead of the other way around? and i'm supposed to be pissed at Sony for making a complex, demanding, superior technology? yeah, thats the kinda thinking that's hampered this industry for the past 20 years. 4.1 you're comment doesn't even merit a reply. besides, don't you have school in the morning, or something?
is it that it may be true? 0r are developers lazy? Sony fans will say lazy while 360 fans will laugh. This is all great news to 360 fanboys. In my opinion i dont think Ubisoft likes Sony anymore (SplinterCell 5). They seem to develope for the 360 and port to PS3 for the extra cash. its all very funny.
"I wonder why Ubi keeps saying this stuff?" when have they said anything like this before?
Maybe about a week ago it was said that AC had better AI than the PS3 version. Sure another article states differently but its interesting to say the least. I of course beleive they will end up being the same but you cannot deny the fact that Ubi seems to be favoring Microsoft.
"another" article didn't state differently. it was the same article, which initially misconstrued Ubisoft's words. here's the original article: http://ps3.ign.com/articles... and here's the updated one: http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... in any event Ubisoft's preference for the 360 is irrelent to the argument for or against the notion that the 360 is superior to or inferior to the PS3. if any thing it just says that Ubisoft would rather take the easier way out, by developing for the system that many developers say is both easier, and yet inferior.
Sony has always had EA do more for them (took us forever to get them to support Live) M$ has UBI...i will take UBI over EA any day.
Its a opinion from a journalist. Not really from Ubisoft. The journalist got to see both versions and they noticed the x360 version looked better. No surprise since Ubisoft has made quite a few games to for xbox 360 so they know how it runs.
They just admitted that they're not taking advantage of the PS3's capabilities, which is a bit worrisome. This comment also made me go "what the hell?" -"we’re developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3 means that there’s less memory available for us to use"- Last time I checked, both systems had 512 Mb of ram, and Cell has 2.5 times the amount of on-chip memory as Xenon. And I won't even get into the whole XDR RAM thing. It goes completely against the interview with Visual Concepts, who specifically stated that the PS3 not only gives them more processing power for things like AI, but renders better than the 360. Then again they pushed each console to its limits instead of porting from one system to the other and hoping that everything goes well.
the ps3 has 256 mb system ram and 256 mb gpu ram... while the xbox360 has the same, it is unified ram, meaning that at any given time the gpu could use all or none of the ram. So when you port.. if in some instances you use 400 mb ram for gpu you'd have to downscale the texture resolutions for the ps3
The RSX GPU can read textures from XDR memory as well, and it's nearly as fast as reading from GDDR3 memory (20GB/s vs 22GB/s). The other solution that PS3 devs have is to render elements of the scenes in Cell and composite them with rendered elements from the RSX.
Do you think software/gaming designers like UBI or EA and others don't know the real and I mean real strenghts and weakness of the ps3? Of course they do and the comment on XDR memory is about 90% false, don't live in make believe, it's 256 available readily and that's greatly underpowered, thus the scalled down textures, AI etc...It's being semi covered up for now as many don't want to admit it's not so powerful after all but it is less adept at gaming, but still well w/in an acceptable range for some fun game play.
Here is an excert from gamspot, who had the privilage to play all three versions. The main article is already posted on the PS3 New thread. "It's worth noting that the 360 and PS3 versions are identical in terms of content; the only difference we noticed is that you can thrust with the sixaxis controller on the PS3 to make your character do his melee attack (though you can still use the button if you want). The games looked quite similar, too, from what we could tell. The level of detail in the maps and characters has been noticeably ramped up from Call of Duty 2, such as with the aforementioned individual grass blades and rays of light filtering through the trees. The characters' facial expressions, clothing, and animations are also appreciably more realistic than in the past. You'd be hard pressed to say which version looks better, especially since they're both running in 720p resolution, but neither one is a slouch in the visual department." This guy is just spewing garbage, like I thought.
This is a review from COD3 not Ubisofts Vegas
The Xbox 360 is truly a full gaming machine.
So tell me Sony fanboys, why is this news bogus? Just look at the quote, not the journalism fluff. If ubisoft wants to develop games this way that's up to them.
the reason people are saying that this news is bogus is that its dependent upon Ubisoft, who itself is bogus for not taking advantage of both (BOTH) consoles. its like they'd prefer to make their games for the 360, then cripple them by porting them to the PS3; which, like i said above, is in a sense depriving gamers of the true quality that they can achieve. if the PS3 is capable of more, then it would stand to reason that they'd develop for the superior system, then port; not vice versa. this was the ideology that plagued the original XBox. in a sense the article is admitting to not appreciating the PS3's capabilities, while at the same time it's trying to coat that admission with the notion that the 360's version is inherently better. Sony fanboys have read between the lines and called it as bogus, while Microsoft fanboys have fell for the guise and say its true. Virtua Tennis is superior on the PS3 for no less a reason than this developer is saying that Rainbow Six will be superior on the 360. or, it could ultimately be a thing to where Ubisoft is in Microsoft's pocket, much like anti-Sony fanboys say that Konami, Sega, so on and so forth are in Sony's pockets.
Wait a second, just because a big wig developer determines to build their game on the far easier and farmiliar based console doesn't make them a bad company. That's business, and to make more profit you HAVE to step on people's toes every once and a while. I don't see the big deal either way your still going to get the same game(multiplayer excluded) with the very close graphics. It's hardly bogus, it can be upsetting to people who thought all developers were going to sacrifice double the resources to pump out a PS3 game. And I would definately believe that other developers are following suit just because of the ease of developing on the 360, and porting it. Although I think most developers will shoot to make the PS3's version the same or close to.
Remember how when the whole "Virtua Tennis looks better on ps3" story came out, all 360 fans agreed that it was due to the developers not fully utilizing the 360 hardware? Isn't it obvious that that's also the case now except the ps3 isn't being utilized properly? Come on people, this arguing is stupid.
This one is about RSLV. Dont worry about it guys. Soon we will have them side by side and reveiws will be out.
Somebody smart enough, please explain me why companies like Sega said their games looks better on PS3. Gamespot said that both COD3 are graphically identical. Visual Concepts said their NBA 2K7 looks better on the PS3, and they gave reasons. Even Bethseda is porting Oblivion and it looks a little, nearly unnoticeable, better than the 360 version. To me Oblibion is a graphically difficult game to port if you dont have enough memory RAM. So here comes UBI again, a company that I respected. Saying that Rainbow Six, a game Im not interested in cause I like SCell DA much, may looks worse on the PS3 thanks to limited memory. Come on blind fanatics. Its only Ubi until now that talking SH!T about their PS3 ports. And thats what they are 360 games badly ported to PS3. LOL!!. I will see this november then I will have enough reasons for judgement.
No way, oblivion slightly looks better than the 360's version. This in no way could be related to the fact of it releasing 6 MONTHS after the 360's.