Back in 2006, one of the biggest complaints about the Playstation 3 was that it was hard to develop for. Here, Kushan takes a look, in some detail, as to why this was and what has changed since then.
It still is hard to develop for...it has gotten a lot better but its still not an easy task. "In the end, money is the biggest factor. If a consoles takes a lot of money to develop for, but also has a big install base, it works out much the same as a console that’s easier (cheaper) to develop for, but has a smaller install base." Quote from the article above. It's all about MONEY. Sony cannot expect 3rd party developers that are not subsidized or funded by Sony to put in the extra time and manpower which translate to more money spent on a game that might not give them maximum return on investment. Only 1st/2nd party games can do this because Sony funds it. Its a business decision and WHY Sony has taken a MASSIVE different approach in developing the PS4. Sony NEVER asked for any input on from software developers on the design of the PS2 AND especially the PS3. This time around Sony is. They did it with the PSP2 and word has it they are doing it with the PS4 whenever that comes out. That is GREAT NEWS.
^^ lol and you know they are doing this for the PS4 how? Sony did seem arrogant at the beginning of this gen and tbh, how could they not after coming off of the success of the PS2!?
There was an article a while back that said the first party Sony deva were giving feedback on what a ps4 should be made like. Or something along those lines..
http://www.sonyps4gaming.co... This has been talked about in many different articles when Sony was asked about how they would support game developers and their next generation system. Sony is not stupid. They no longer hold the market-share and know they cannot use the same techniques they did with the PS2 and even the PS3 to succeed next generation...(build it and they will come attitude)when MS and Nintendo has taken away a lot of their market-share from last generation. Sony knows very well if and when they release a PS4, they MUST change their attitude and take input from the very game developers that put them on the map and not make it so difficult. Its one of the reasons the Sega Saturn died an early death. Sony knows this and you can bet your ass they will be taking advice this time when they create the PS4 because you know MS and Nintendo are...
I fully expect the PS4 to go the route of the NGP (PSP2) and offer a much easier to develop for platform. Of course, they may just make an improved Cell architecture with higher RAM and more processing power (more SPU's, maybe 32??). This would allow for the PS4 to be fully backward compatible with the PS3. And, by then, they may have a fully working software emulator for playing PS2 games on the PS4. lol PSN: blumatt XBL: Blu Matt
No console to easy to develop for. The PS3 was just the hardest before. Now, devs have experienced it and want to do more after seeing that there more things the ps3 can do for their games.
PS3 exclusives look awesome, period. So why does the PS3 version of some multi-platform games look somewhat less impressive? *Multi-platform games aren't developed for PS3 the same way exclusive games are. Which is why exclusives look so good in comparison to multi-platform games. It is obvious prove of the PS3's ability some people deny. With 360, exclusive and multi-platform development is pretty much the same. And many times when development is 360-led, calibration takes place on 360 and isn't corrected on PS3.
"So why does the PS3 version of some multi-platform games look somewhat less impressive?" Hoops just explained that above. 3rd party developers don't have the resources to put a bunch of extra time debugging and polishing games for the PS3 and still expect to make a good return on their investment. 1st and 2nd Party developers have better support and are being subsidized by Sony. Therefore they can put more time and effort into their titles. I also think the article was WAY to damn long to say what the bottom line was.
It all depends on which platform the game was developed on. Like it's been said before. It's easier to port from PS3 to 360. Otherwise... well I've explained that above.
Only plain ignorance would blind you from the fact that the next iteration of sony's home console is in development, just the same as microsft is developing theirs. We obviously dont know when they will release it etc, but its being developed. The PS3 was in development since 2003 (two years after the ps2 was released).
I agree with blumatt, PS4 could just be a PS3 with more of "everything". Dev kits wouldn't need to change much, and the devs would already know how to get the best out of it. The cost of developing PS4 hardware would probably be much lower than what it was for the PS3 too. It would be mainly changes to the chips, the basic design could probably stay pretty much the same.
To be successful in my book, the PS4 would just need a graphics chip that can do tessellation and a new iteration of the CELL. Tessellation is awesome. I sperm my pants when thinking of an Uncharted game with tessellation.
nice was a nice sunday evening coffee read some of this was not new but I liked how the writer organized this now if only your website was designed as well as your article :D
We know nothing about the PS4, it is so far off they could do a complete 180 and change everything. IMO I think they should stick to the same architecture as the PS3 (CELL,GPU etc) since all of the Devs now know how to develop for it now and will only get better/improve their design etc as time passes. Next generation Cell and powerful CPU/More memory would be great, same dev approach just with alot more power to push. Would really help reduce the amount of dev problems PS3 encountered at launch.
PS3 was never hard to develop on, it was just hard to port to! This is still the case! Some may think that multiplat devs can't take the time to build a separate game instead of porting. I say, I paid the same $60 that the unported version console owners paid, why should I get a port! I'll save my money for devs who develop for me, not pay the same $60 to be an after thought!
I doubt multiplatform development is pure a ROI thing. By pushing a separate PS3 version this could possibly be "subsidized" by higher sales on that platform. It is rather a mix. Minimum investment to not alienate the PS3 audience too much and not too much to piss of Microsoft. Sony doesn't care. They can push their own published games where they certainly make more money than just license fees from 3rd party. If at all, it is not a technical thing - to some extend, yes, because you want to keep the (art) workflow the same - but more than that it is a political thing. I would like to see, if a MP game could be made which uses e.g. virtual memory or the polygon budget of KZ3 and is implemented across platform with the given separate teams to do the implementation - with the only boundary of polygon/texture limit each engine can chew (and an optimized or separate art workflow for each). Now that would be interesting to see.
"Most cross platform games are now on par, or better, than their 360 or PC counterparts." Par or better than PC counterparts? Sure, if your PC and/or graphics card is over 3 or 4 years old!!!
The PS3 tech is a strange beast. With the 360 devs can literally drop a PC game into a magic 360zip file and the game is a go(with some polishing and tweaking), but the PS3 uses the cell and a different GPU/CPU set up so the code has to be written a lot differently. But the magic 360zip program seems to work with the PS3 very well. So games lead on PS3 can get easily ported to 360 and everyone can have a stellar PC quality game like CAstelvania and Vanquish have proved. As for the NGP, I have to say that system is impressive. You can port PS3 games over too it with in a week. That just blows my mind. And it runs the Unreal Engine almost as good as the 360 and it's still in beta mode.
wow..interesting article. But 360 can run 6 threads not 3....3 cores able to run two threads each.. Good ps3 fanboy article.
Another big factor with PS3 was sony launched the machine with a bloated operating system. Initially sony reserved a quite massive 120mb of the machine's memory. Xbox 360 has never used more than 32mb of it's unified 512mb, everything fitted in that, from the dashboard to custom soundtracks, EVERYTHING. So the first time a developer came to PS3 to port a game or even make a new one, they found PS3 was giving away massive amounts of RAM to 360, trying to fit as much in 80mb+ less memory was clearly impossible and so we saw games cut to pieces and far better multiplat versions on 360. Since then sony have shrunk the requirements down progressively releasing more memory to developers. Indeed, current version indicate that Sony reserve as little as 50mb. Possibly even less now. This is very significant to developers working on multi format titles especially, as such the gap between versions has reduced as one would expect. PS3 still gives away memory and bandwidth to 360. One of the biggest mistakes IMO with PS3's architecture is not the choice of CELL, but the choice to cut the GPU's memory bus to 128bit. If for example sony has insisted on at least a 192bit bus with 700mhz GDDR3 instead of 128bit and 650mhz, PS3 would have more than 50 percent extra memory bandwidth, and a possible configuration of 768mb of RAM instead of 512. Thus killing two birds with one stone, although slightly increasing cost of production. In that config, multiplat games would have nearly always favoured PS3, even initially with such a large OS footprint.
Now PS3 is familiar to all developers other than unreal 3 users.
I think UE3's favour of 360 is because of Epic's very early and deep collaboration with Microsoft on the machine's hardware and software. Allegedly it was Epic working on UE3 and Gears of war a few years prior to release who demanded 360 be equipped with 512mb of system memory when microsoft initially specced 256. All of UE3's initial console games were on 360 right up to late 2007- two years after 360 launched. I think Epic struggled to get the engine to work as they would like on PS3 for some time, Fatal inertia for example was slated only for PS3 early on, until it moved to be multi format. Eventually, the game came out on 360 long before it even hit PS3 thanks to developmental problems on PS3 with UE3. Even now i think its fairly obvious that the engine was customised and geared heavily around 360's architecture before being adapted to PS3. Unfortunately for PS3, UE3 has proven to be a massively popular engine to make games with, and its clear even to this day 360 holds an edge performance wise with it.
single threading vs multithreading concept ,if my theory hold right one console is better suited for multithreading.
One thing I never understood, why the hell do we get consoles with such low RAM when its dirt cheap to get a 2gig pc stick. Surely it isnt that costly so why do we get machines that struggle when they reach their edge instead of handling it smoothly and being capable of going much further
Consoles do not have large operating systems so need less memory to start with. However.... For one thing, you need fast memory. Fast memory means more bandwidth, which is important for graphics processors and games. Fast memory is expensive. Most computers have a large pool of (relatively) slow system RAM which needs to store a lot of data but does not typically need to transfer data so quickly, and then video cards have a smaller pool of much faster more expensive memory as the GPU does need to move data around fast, but less data. In order for a GPU to maintain optimal performance, memory bandwidth is crucial. Five years ago most computers used DDR2 memory for system RAM, which even then was not really fast enough for graphics processors- not the ones in the consoles either. Only GDDR3 was but most PC video cards only used 256mb. Only high end cards had 512mb of GDDR3 because of course, it was expensive and most games never used more than that, as no one had hardware that had more than that! As technology moves on so does memory density, speed and of course, cost. 5 years on most new computers have system memory FASTER than even the graphics memory in consoles, and its cheap. this might give rise to the question why the console do not have lots of memory, mainly because of the cost when they were designed, and the standards that were around at that point.
This is one reason Cell performs so well in the PS3; XDR, which is the fastest memory on the market still to this day! 360's graphics ram is 700mhz while PS3's Cell CPU ram which is also used in graphics processing is 3.2 ghz; most people are aware that the PS3's graphics muscle is due to the Cell. XDR ram is extremely expensive,(less expensive now thanks to mass production in PS3) which is one of the reasons PS3 was so expensive when it first hit the market!
CELL does have a lot of bandwidth for a CPU. This shows why it was intended to be used for more than just conventional CPU tasks, because XDR imbued it with a huge chunk of bandwidth, just over 25GB/s. The only consumer X86 desktop PC central processors that have more bandwidth to this day, five years later, are triple channel intel i7 systems with fast DDR3. XDR in PS3 has now been bested by GDDR5 for speed, although XDR2 is still by far and away the fastest memory around. PS3 production made up 90 percent of XDR use in consumer products. Sony may not use it in their next machine, simply because it is very expensive, as has been said. 360's CPU has limited, shared bandwidth, as it is intended as a conventional CPU. Instead, microsoft chose to give Xenos a vast amount of bandwidth between its main die and the small pool of EDRAM. It is very useful, but in a different way to CELL.
@vulcanproject, Thanks man finally get it now. Nice to get an answer about tech without someone else jumping in an starting a flame war too
In short... It was because they were using a different programming language which people were not used to. This meant that many programmers for games companies had to be re-trained and more highly skilled programmers had to be hired.
Regardless of reasons, the fact SEGA just released a 32X add-on only to announce a new console within a short period of time pissed off adopters. Take a look at the Dreamcast which was a console that is by far one of the easiest to develop for due to the fact that it runs on MS: CE; has yet, failed, to keep SEGA afloat. Meanwhile the design of the PS2, though flawed, has forced devs to optimize code from the beginning which resulted in graphical gems like MGS: SE, GOW I & II followed by SoTC. However, the 360 with "EASY-TO-DEVELOP" concept has made devs easy-minded and take for granted the hardware, hence Cliffy B's statement "Gears of War 2 uses 95% of the 360's power". Had the PS3 not revealed graphical powerhouses like KZ2 and U2, no other 3rd party dev or even 1st party devs would even begin to consider pushing the 360 console. I just hope the "Easy-to-develop" for mentality will not continue with the future re-iterations of the PSX franchise. -End of Line
Easy to develop for = good. Dreamcast didnt run on Windows CE either, some individual games did and carried it on the disc to be loaded beforehand but it was rubbish and used more resources so most did not. Easy is good for developers because its cheaper, faster to make games. You are less hung up on technical problems and hitches to focus more on creating the game you want. Easier to build multi format games, easier to port. Lets face it 99 percent of games will look better on an easier to develop system than a harder to develop one, what with the industry creating so many multi titles these days. Sure you have a harder system where 1 percent of exclusive games will look better which is good, but when most gamers these days play multi format titles more of the time then easy is an easy win. Why have a system where 99 percent of developers cannot extract maximum performance just to service the tiny few that can. Its much better to have a system 99 percent of devs can utilise as much performance as possible, even if that means you hit a bit of a graphics wall fairly early.
@DigitalAnalog: After reading the whole article, and reading your reply. I agree with the notion that PS4 and above should be "complicated." I think that the whole "easy to develop for" gives off the lazy mentality, its evident when some games don't feel like they've been given the full "hard work" that it should have been given. @Computersayno: Yes, Dreamcast DID run a Windows CE chip: It was an optimized version of Windows CE supporting DirectX.
NO, dreamcast had the ability to run the WinCE platform. BUT it was NOT Dreamcast's main operating system. It was a supplementary platform for developers, who could chose which environment to build their games on. Look at a dreamcast, it'll say COMPATIBLE with Windows CE. Not runs on, not powered by. Because WinCE had many downsides if you based your game on it in dreamcast, the games that use it were often early titles. Most games DID NOT USE IT after a while, because they realised better performance from Sega's own proprietary OS. Find out more for yourself: http://news.cnet.com/Window...
why wouldn't you want it easier to develop for? PS3 would have had a lot more momentum due to better looking games closer to the beginning Games like warhawk would have looked way better. GT5 would have probably taken less time to develop. i don't understand why people keep using the word "lazy" have any of you taken programming? doesn't make them lazy to have the proper tools, it makes them efficient as its already hard & takes a lot of time(money). if what has been said is true, i'm happy for what they're doing with the PS4
It took the 360 nearly 6 years to realize they needed something like Gears of War 3 and Halo: Reach before they ever considered "pushing" the console to it's limits. This is what happens when you have the "easy-to-develop-for" ; mentality. Look at Gears 3 compared to Gears 2, why such a gap between them compared to Gears 2 and 1? Did they need Uncharted 2 to kick them in the nuts before they realize they can push the system even further? Therefore it took ND 1 YEAR to make sure the system is capable of producing great graphics from the start, and that is Uncharted 1 which beats out 95% of the 360's exclusives in terms of graphics. And they utilized only 30% of the SPU's? See the difference? -End of Line -End statement
I am pretty sure developers tried to maximise their use of 360 all the time and not just because PS3 exists.... The fact is though even Gears of war is built on middleware, not an engine built from the ground up for 360 and only ever 360. It still looks great. I think anyone that argues the line that difficult and expensive hardware to develop for is good is kinda stupid. All it does is frustrate developers, prevent them from looking at the platform to build games early on, put off more smaller developers and indie developers, ruin multi platform ports. Just because you think games developers are inherently lazy does not make it true, i know for a fact that most of them are extremely hard working and bust their asses with overtime to get games right. The last thing they need is to try and learn an architecture that has little to do with any other machine they'll code for in the future. How many will be motivated to pander to an arrogant company building a machine like that? Intentionally promoting a handful of first party big budget exclusive games being the only ones that can unlock performance?
You brought up good points. However, you're only looking this to where situation only matters in "present" time. To answer your first point, middleware can work both ways. As of now, it favors the 360 but that doesn't stop it from producing the likes of Bioshock: Infinite, clearly a case where the console is definitely being pushed higher than other UE3 games. Yes, there are good and bad points on both sides on the story. However, I'm only concerned to the one where tech can be pushed further than the everyday norm. For the year the 360 had begun before the PS3, the only defining graphics until Alan Wake was Gears of War. 5 YEARS before a competing company (ironically a 3rd party dev) by the likes of Crytek can truly show how the 360 is capable. Heck, it even has a higher resolution than the PS3. Which brings us to this question: If the console was so "easy-to-develop-for& quot ;, why aren't the visuals/tech being pushed at a faster rate than the PS3 despite being longer in the market? I don't need to tell you the HUGE difference between Uncharted 1 & 2, the former was released MONTHS before the first PS3 US release. How is it the PS3 is always pumping up huge tech differnce between their last game and the sequel in a short period of time? We now have KZ3, which has 10x the level size and 3x the polygons. How many games this generation could claim as such? Exactly. It always ends up at the PS3's table. Cliffy B wouldn't claim Geow2 as 95% on the 360's hardware if he knew how capable the UE3 tech would be if he had seen Bioshock: Infinite. Nobody is saying the devs are lazy, they just take hardware for granted. They realize it's easy to push the 360 they don't even consider that you can push more optimized code. You then proceed to add up that multi-platform games and porting issues. Here's something you forgot. QUALITY. No, I'm not talking about ports. How many 3rd party games are actually up to snuff for purchasing? Easy to develop for consoles does not stop 3rd party devs from producing crap like Damnation or Mindjack. There are devs who want to PUSH the hardware and then there are those who DON'T. So far I'm seeing most of the 1st Party SONY devs acing in that division the other 3rd party devs are few far in between. Or would you prefer that the console itself is miles above the 360. You can't also blame budget. GTAIV, a 3rd party dev has spend $100 million on that game alone. Nearly twice as the highest PS3 exclusive budget of GT5. Crappy ports don't faze me considering many of the games are not even worth mentioning. Even if I agreed with you, fact is technology is only going to get more complicated. By then, who is willing to be prepared to make games in the coming future if all they care about is "easy-to-develop"? I hope I brought my point across. -End of Line
To be honest you just seem to be hinging your entire argument on the premise that hard is good because it motivates developers to push on when in reality, it doesn't though. It puts most developers off, it is counter productive. Rather than spurring on most developers to squeeze more out it turns off the vast majority of developers not associated with the console manufacturer or those without massive budgets and vast technical support and resources to look elsewhere when building a third party game. It causes first party studios much pain and delay and extends dev time hugely. As such you end up waiting for your exclusives for ages. We have seen this generation PS3 lose countless quality third party exclusive titles to 360 by superb developers because of PS3's architecture. Valve is a great example, the ONLY reason valve came back to PS3 was the openess of the platform. They still despise the architecture. So PS3 has no left 4 dead, no L4D2, no portal expansions. Terrible outsourced version of valve's early titles. Its too late. These are the DIRECT results of dealing with a problematic architecture early on. I think you focus so much on the technical idea of games MUST somehow advance graphically or be labeled poor, when consoles always have limited room for advancement anyway. It should not be the main priority at all. What should really matter is encouraging developers to make better games overall, not slightly prettier visuals every year. If you give them easy tools to do this then not only will the quality output of ALL developers be far better early on regardless of whether they are first party exclusives or third party multi plats- it will attract only more studios to your platform more inclined to build a game only for your machine and try to extract more performance from it, increasing competition, looking for that edge in a competitive market. What a fantastic environment that is, its ideal.
PS4s development was suspended recently. Google it if you don't believe. I cba to source.
U obviously didn't google long enough or were blindfolded:"words of Kaz Hirai were misinterpreted, PS4 development not halted,Sony will likely debut PS4 in 2013" http://www.crazyengineers.c...
The day sony move to a standard configuration the "consoles" will be dead. What you will have is Lite PC's for ppl too stupid to replace a GPU and RAM and pay 5x cost for a harddrive.
This article actually has some inaccurate information, such as: "If you didn’t already know, the concept of having a program do two things at the same time is called “multi-threading” (not to be confused with multi-tasking)." Multi-threading doesn't equal doing multiple things at the same time i.e. multi-threading was done even on single core CPU's. The idea is to basically load balance your tasks on the CPU. You can split tasks up without incurring significant cost while switching tasks. The reason why the PS3 was (and is) difficult to program for, is that when you have six things going on in the same process you got 6 things to worry about at all times trying to access various resources. The chance of a deadlock is now considerably higher by a factor. Coupled this with the fact that each thread has limited memory, and you have to ensure you split up the tasks small enough and provide the logic to re-combine this task. It is far easier to split things up into two threads per process. One process on each core, like the Xbox 360. The reason it is somewhat easier now for the PS3, is simply the tools and some more knowledge of how to adapt your data to PS3's CPU. Doesn't mean the issues no longer exists, just that they are considerably less of an issue.
You're right that the description isn't 100% accurate, however I was trying to keep the (already slightly oversized) article as simple as possible, so as many people as possible could read and "get" it.
Deadlocks and the number of threads is not complicated. Simply rule is avoid locks all together (e.g. only on merging results). I would love to have as many threads as I can. Cores don't scale linearly, though, and 2 cores don't give you 100% performance increase - at least not on a coherent (automated) system. SW managed threads (e.g. SPU "threads") will always be more efficient than pure OS driven threads (I like boost threads because of the ease of usage. But the the overhead is significant). The only problem with threading is, you have to use the environment in the most efficient way. Spawning 8 threads on an i7 is, in my experience, slower than running 4 - event though the i7 runs 8 HW threads (on 4 physical cores) - so much, that 8 threads degrade performance to a single core level (on that specific platform). Problem with a coherent system is, it generates overhead. Those threads usually have automated "context" handling, while on the PS3 those threads must be manually managed by SW. Like I said, spawning a boost worker thread in C++ is a one liner. Doing the same on a SPU most likely will require you to write a very efficient scheduler - you have 6 CPUs (SPUs) and you cannot simply context switch data and code like you can with a OS supported threading system (automated vs. manual context switch). On an i7 (or 360) you need to be very carefully to spawn more threads than you have cores available. If you do, you need to synchronize those threads manually or the performance benefit is simply gone. Good thing, though, is that multithreading is becoming mainstream technology. The PS3 force developers to think parallel. The very same technology is now also used more and more on standard architecture (360 and PC). A good parallel design which is required on the PS3 will automatically benefit the other architectures.
There is so much information in this article that just isn't accurate. And to claim that the PS3 is hard to develope for just because it is different is not fully accurate. The core of the hardware bottlenecks the system and does not allow proper development for gaming. It is GREAT for media, but making a game is different then making a video with input output.
That is exactly what I was trying to point out above and very well said, overall the core of the hardware bottlenecks the system.
Just trying to make it readable to the masses. People are just mesmerized by the tech information of the article itself and think, wow... sounds right. Unfortunately for every issue thought of as being solved there are so many other issues that degraed the system due to how it was constucted. It just simply looks like they were trying to build a beast without realizing that the structure is not best suited for what they want the machine to do. (or is it....? I don't think the machine was built primarily for gaming... I THINK they actually tried to make it a media machine) Again, it's the drag racer trying to compete as an Indie car. It has a lot of power but not built to take those corners.
@hoops Sony cannot be expected to hold every 3rd party devs hand or fund them either. if they want to make money making games then they should make the effort not Sony after all they do not contribute a single penny towards the cost of development of hardware do they?
I'm just happy that 99% of multiplats look 99% identical now.
Sorry but we all know that's not the case. I wouldn't put it that high but it has gotten better. I still dont think it was a great decision by sony to launch with a difficult architecture. Not that i think its bad but its just too expensive for some devs.I hope they learned their lesson. You can have all the power but if you cant tap into it the way you want then its of no use. Next time they can at least provide better tools for devs.
I definitely think the majority of multiplats released lately are pretty much identical and the majority of people wouldn't even notice unless they were told about it beforehand and even then they wouldn't care. If you're complaining about every negligible difference, you'll find much bigger visual differences based on the quality of TV a particular person has. Bullet Storm feasibly could look better on PS3 than on 360 depending on what TV it's played on. Just a few examples of games 99% identical: Dead Space 2 = same MvC = 360 has some tearing during supers but IMO pretty much same Bullet Storm = 360 has those light rays but IMO pretty much the same Mass Effect 2 = pretty much same NFS Hot Pursuit = same Vanquish = same Enslaved = same The only games released in the last year where I would call a significant visual difference is Black Ops.
Bulletstorm is a good example that Epic still doesn't (or hasn't) fully optimized UE3 to the PS3, yet. God rays have been in other various PS3 titles since a while now. They simply didn't make it into UE3. Same for MLAA, this could be implemented on an engine level inside UE3, but also is not the case. This is a sign of the SW (UE3) still not fully optimized for the platform, but yet their focus is on the tool chain with a result to be equal as much as possible.
No one should be happy about multiplats. Even if the majority of them look better on the 360 it does not mean that either console is getting the version it deserves. Multiplats seem to be inferior to exclusives on both consoles.
The problem is 8%%of games release in any given calender year ARE multi-platform games. The ratio is almost 5-1 over exclusive game releases. More gamers have multi-platform titles in their collection than exclusives. Simply math. If you were only to play exclusives on a given game system because you thought all multi-platform games were "inferior" and not worth your time, you would have maybe 9+ games to enjoy during one year on your system. Sorry...that would suck balls. Not all multi-plat games are inferior to exclusives. Who told you that?
I would say that was true in 06 and 07, but it certainly is not the case now. For example, Bulletstorm is generally agreed to be a better game than Killzone 3, and Bulletstorm is certainly the game that everyone is talking about in spite of all the hype for KZ3. Look I understand you are angry about this, but constantly repeating over and over againb the KZ3 is a better game than Bulletstorm does not make it so...
I dont know anyone who is talking about Bulletstorm. A majority of the articles here on N4G seem to be about Killzone 3, IGN have a Killzone "kill of the day" feature, I look in shop windows and i see Killzone posters. So get real - killzone is what everyone is talking about, thats not to say that Bulletstorm is bad but killzone is definitley the game in the spotlight at the moment. oh, and it is the better game
"the majority of them". Only in 360's fanboys wet dreams (and ll.o.t is a well kniwn blog helping them to dream) Its the same thing most of the time in real life, when you are playing the game on your tv...but you are right, they should have been better on ps3, since exclusives look most of the time better.. About playing only exclusives, you only can do that on ps3 if you are a gamer, the competition don't have enough good exclusives each years (hoops, remember when myamoto said "4 games/year is enough")
@B1663r I have both and Kz3 and Bulletstorm. KZ3 whips Bulletstorm like a little b!%ch. That being said, Bulletstorm is still fun and I do plan on playing it more after I'm bored with KZ3.
@hoops "9+ games to enjoy during one year on your system." this would only be a problem for the ADHD gamer who is only capable of spending a week on a game before they have to move on to another. Either from being to hard or that the next overhyped crapbuster title came out. Judging from your post you seem to fit the description.
Hoops, I just know in my library in 2011 the exclusives to multi ratio will be something like 5:1 or something. But I won't buy much more games than that...so exclusives will be the only ones I will focus on in 2011.
It was always the case, but they have to be better on ps3, since exclusives on ps3 look better than any multi (and not on 360, where multi look the same)
"Sony eventually acknowledged that even its own developers were struggling with the console" Such as Insomniac and Naughty Dog? Ratchet and Uncharted were launched in less than a year. Still look better than any game on "easy to develop for" Xbox 360. Incidentally, we were also told the PS3's cell is useless for gaming, it has inadequate RAM and the graphics card is too weak. Any explanation for the gap in graphics between KZ2, GoW3, UC2 versus Halo/Alan Wake
Anyone who called the Cell "useless for gaming" either had an anti-Sony agenda, or was just plain stupid.
Yeap. Agreed on that one.
The graphics card is weak, but the CELL makes up for it. If the graphics cars wasn't weak then all those games you mentioned could've possibly looked 50x's better. "Anyone who called the Cell "useless for gaming" either had an anti-Sony agenda, or was just plain stupid" Those comments came from people who had worked with the Cell based architecture so of course their opinions were based on what they've worked with. You possibly would've said the same thing if you were a dev at the time, but you're not so quit talking out of your ass. "anti-Sony agenda" 'Teh conspiracies' lol
I think Gear 3 is the best look on xbox but U2 or even MGS4 can blow it away easy.
"but U2 or even MGS4 can blow it away easy." No they don't. You loyalists think the differences between the games are night and day saying outlandish comments like "blow it away easily" when in reality they are very minimal.
@The_Ultimate_Guy I have both systems and PS3 first party games are significantly better looking than any First party xbox game. I think Alan Wake is the best looking game on xbox anyway, not Gears. If you cant tell the difference, you need a better television.
@ evilmonkey501 I have both systems as well and play on a 55' Samsung LCD TV. Sony's "first party" games do look significantly better than MS's "first party" games but you are fooling yourself if you think the differences between exclusives on the PS3 are to the extent of what shoddy said..."blow it away easily". PS3 "blows away easily" the graphics from last gen. But they are not "Blowing away easily" some of the top games this gen. Significantly better but not to the point of "blowing away easily".