Originally posted by Smasandian
If a company like Valve thinks a system is too over complicated is saying something about that system. For a company based on some of the best developing tech minds in the industry, let alone creative minds is really showcasing why the PS3 is not doing as well as the PS2 last generation.
This is exactly what I would like the Sony fanbase to really understand. Most feel that Valve "hates" the PS3 and therefore he staying away from the console. When it fact the man himself has been very outspoken about issues making games for the console.
On the other hand...if Konami can put MGS4 with no issues..why can't Valve do the same?
Beats me.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Budding game designer to the rescue!You accusing the developers of being lazy is disgusting. Seriously. You have no idea what actually goes into making a game.
Developers prefer the 360 because the development platform was built specifically to integrate well with Windows, which of course is industry leader for game development of any kind. What this means for developers is they don't have to convert files and change code back and forth into the dev. platform to test it out, removing the dangers of code corruption during conversion and making it much easier to find and fix problems in the code.
The PS3, however, with its much-toted but ultimately maligned Cell Processor, requires conversion, and to make things worse, stores information differently. This increases the danger of something getting corrupted, and makes bad code harder to find as you have to figure out where it's being stored.
This is not laziness, this is simple practicality. Developers are not going to opt for a harder, buggier job when they can achieve virtually identical results using a much easier platform. It reduces man-hours of work and overall development time - both of which reduce the cost of development.
Here, let's do it in a proof!
Xbox 360 = Less work
Less work = Less time
Less time = Less cost
Less cost = More profitTherefore:
Xbox 360 = More profit.
if most developers follow the steps of EA for example, who announced that most of their profits came from PS3 than any other console in the previous monthes, then these developers would realize that time spent working with PS3 will ultimately have a payoffs (if they game is good ofcourse). But i get it, they'd rather take the short easy road, and coast through: safe bet, than the long hard road with challenges, its done.
and i see plenty of people on PSN, ofcourse it depends on what kind of games you play. If i wanted to play Stranglehold online or Chromehounds, i would doubt that there would be anyone, but COD4 there would be plenty, MGO and etc.
and most people believe Valve hates ps3, cuz all the headlines are, like "Valve hates PS3" basically, and quoting the interview "PS3 is a waste of time" when infact, companies such as Konami and EA, are very profitable with PS3, and learning to develop with the PS3's new architecture, code langues and techniques, overcoming challenges and continuous learning is a part of a programmers job.
Well, all of thier games are made for the PC, and then ported over to the 360 with no trouble at all.
Trying to port over a Windows based game I assume is a time extensive procedure so in the end they didn't want to because a. small developer b. waste of money.
Thats why a separate EA developer ported over the Orange Box with lackluster results. Given the amount of time Konami had to make MGS4, I'm pretty sure Valve would of been able to do it. But they didnt want too.Valve finds developing for the PS3 is unnecessary complicated.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, all of thier games are made for the PC, and then ported over to the 360 with no trouble at all.Trying to port over a Windows based game I assume is a time extensive procedure so in the end they didn't want to because a. small developer b. waste of money.
Thats why a separate EA developer ported over the Orange Box with lackluster results. Given the amount of time Konami had to make MGS4, I'm pretty sure Valve would of been able to do it. But they didnt want too.Valve finds developing for the PS3 is unnecessary complicated.
for the amount of time it took to make MGS4, it was worth it.
I also assume porting a windows based game to PS3 takes a lot of time, especially for developers unfamiliar with PS3. But you also have Edge Tools created by Naughty Dog & other first party to assist third party developers with ps3 dev, so there should be no excuses for the future.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
for the amount of time it took to make MGS4, it was worth it.I also assume porting a windows based game to PS3 takes a lot of time, especially for developers unfamiliar with PS3. But you also have Edge Tools created by Naughty Dog & other first party to assist third party developers with ps3 dev, so there should be no excuses for the future.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
...Did you just completely ignore my post? I explained precisely how that process works, and yet you're still implying the developers are at fault for the PS3 being an impractical and annoying piece of hardware.
did you ignore mine? i stated that there are tools to assist in developing for PS3, so no one can say its impractical or annoying, or poor, they're developing on a next gen platform. And like i stated before, continuous learning is part of a programmers career.
However if devs like Valve, and so on believe it is a waste of time, they dont want to even bother with PS3, then so be it. When PS3 outsells 360 in NA, like it already did in Japan and Europe, business will be business and just a matter of nickels and dimes, when choosing to develop for the ideal console; the superior console, and dumbing the port down for other consoles.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
did you ignore mine? i stated that there are tools to assist in developing for PS3, so no one can say its impractical or annoying, or poor, they're developing on a next gen platform. And like i stated before, continuous learning is part of a programmers career.However if devs like Valve, and so on believe it is a waste of time, they dont want to even bother with PS3, then so be it. When PS3 outsells 360 in NA, like it already did in Japan and Europe, business will be business and just a matter of nickels and dimes, when choosing to develop for the ideal console; the superior console, and dumbing the port down for other consoles.
The very fact that there have been tools like that made to assist in developing is proof that it is impractical and annoying.
Originally posted by Peach
The very fact that there have been tools like that made to assist in developing is proof that it is impractical and annoying.
developers use the words "difficult, less friendly for developers". Some people around here, say 'impractical, poor, annoying"
While Ubisoft praised the PS3 in their FC2 interview, saying, "...once we started having results we saw that it was a very capable console..."
Naughty Dog, Konami, Ubisoft and especially Sony first party developers are doing pretty good, thankfully for PS3 owners. They've done their jobs, overcoming obstacles and difficult challenges of the high complexity of the PS3, so those words, impractical poor and annoying cant be used anymore, they can only describe developers that prefer developing on easier platforms, not bothering with the challenges i previously mentioned.
EA's making big bucks from their games sold on PS3 lately, and their games are not even exclusive to PS3, and, it is a fact, that last year's Madden ran better on 360 than PS3, yet some how, they managed to make money with the PS3, and somehow the formula that'General Kaliero' mentioned, did not apply:
PS3 = more work
more work = more time
more time = more cost
and some how through all of this...
PS3= more profit, than any other system
and with Edge Tools to help...cant argue more time, work and costs will be down to just considerable time work and cost...to less time work and costs. As more games today, reach equal level, or not...for example, COD4, Burnout Paradise, DMC4, are all better on PS3, how could this be?
To Summarize, the argument is, some developers do not want to bother with the PS3 due to the high complexity of the cell architecture and more cost, less profitable, and 'General Kaliero' says that the cell arc is designed poorly, impractically and is annoying [to developers] and is inferior to the xbox 360's, some agree with him, like Valve and some posters here. I argue that it is not, The PS3's cell arc, is simply a specialized processor, as opposed to PC/360's being a general processor. And while Edge Tools is available to make developing on PS3 easier, i believe that it is not designed poorly, impractically,etc. I believe that somehow through all of this, it will become the lead developing platform in the near future, along with LucasArts, as well as the obvious First Party developers like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Incognito, and newb dev Terminal Reality, who have chosen PS3 as their lead dev platform. I hope more developers are in the pursuit of knowledge, continuously learning everyday. I also previously called developers like Valve, and Epic "lazy" since they prefer to develop for a system like 360/PC, the way i used this word was, that they are hesistant to develop for PS3 because it may not be profitable, they do not want to bother with the troubles that may arise when dev for PS3. However if they did work, like other lead developers do, it would be profitable, and the challenges will be spilled milk, nothing to cry over.
Dude, exactly which part of "budding game designer" did you not comprehend? I'm learning how all of this works; I know more about the development process and game politics.
Naughty Dog, Konami, Ubisoft and especially Sony first party developers are doing pretty good, thankfully for PS3 owners. They've done their jobs, overcoming obstacles and difficult challenges of the high complexity of the PS3, so those words, impractical poor and annoying cant be used anymore, they can only describe developers that prefer developing on easier platforms, not bothering with the challenges i previously mentioned.
EA's making big bucks from their games sold on PS3 lately, and their games are not even exclusive to PS3, and, it is a fact, that last year's Madden ran better on 360 than PS3, yet some how, they managed to make money with the PS3, and somehow the formula that'General Kaliero' mentioned, did not apply:
PS3 = more work
more work = more time
more time = more cost
and some how through all of this...PS3= more profit, than any other system
For the record, the NPD records through June 2008 are:
Nintendo Wii: 10,853,000
Xbox 360: 10,492,400
PS3: 4,854,300
Even if the PS3 were not selling at a loss - which it is, remember - it would still be, and is, less profitable as a console.
and with Edge Tools to help...cant argue more time, work and costs will be down to just considerable time work and cost...to less time work and costs. As more games today, reach equal level, or not...for example, COD4, Burnout Paradise, DMC4, are all better on PS3, how could this be?
...and 'General Kaliero' says that the cell arc is designed poorly, impractically and is annoying [to developers] and is inferior to the xbox 360's, some agree with him, like Valve and some posters here.
So given the choice between the PS3 Cell and the 360 Xenon, developers are going to choose the Xenon.
as well as the obvious First Party developers like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Incognito, and newb dev Terminal Reality, who have chosen PS3 as their lead dev platform.
Second, as second-party developers they did not choose the PS3. They are required by contract to develop speficially for Sony consoles.
Third, Terminal Reality is a fully third-party company who has developed games for multiple consoles. They are also hardly new, as they've been in the business since 1994. Which in fact makes them older than Incognito Entertainment. I know this, by the way, because TRI is one of the companies I'd like to look into after earning my degree.
See, the problem with arguing about a topic with someone who knows more about that topic than you is that you're probably not going to win.
Gk, I do agree with you that the PS3 is harder to design which means less developers are willing to do games on it, but your wrong about Sony's outlook and how the PS3 is doing economics wise.
Just released
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_earns_sony
In the end, the game division's profit rose while the company overall profit decrease from failing music and movies, cellphones and electronics. The game division is making them a profit now.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Dude, exactly which part of "budding game designer" did you not comprehend? I'm learning how all of this works; I know more about the development process and game politics.Incorrect. Konami and Ubisoft still develop for all three platforms, so they still make money off of multiplatform sales. Sony's games division is in fact losing money - yes, still - but Sony as a whole corporation is so profitable that they can do that. Sony may be doing well, but it isn't because of their games; it's because of their TVs, and DVD players, and other home electronics.
EA owns exclusive rights to the Madden license, and several other profitable sports and other licenses. They make considerable money because of those, regardless of the platform. But the fact that the 360-owning sales base is larger than the PS3-owning sales base means that the majority of those profits are most definitely not coming from PS3 games.
This is just fallacy. The PS3 is still selling at a loss, and still has not sold anywhere near the amount of the 360. Hell, it hasn't even shipped near the amount of the 360.
For the record, the NPD records through June 2008 are:
Nintendo Wii: 10,853,000
Xbox 360: 10,492,400
PS3: 4,854,300Even if the PS3 were not selling at a loss - which it is, remember - it would still be, and is, less profitable as a console.
As most people with functioning eyes can tell you, the difference in visual quality between the 360 and the PS3 is negligible, and is nothing that is going to influence sales.
I say so, because it is. I had to compare and contrast the hardware of the three current consoles for my last game design class, and the simple, undebatable fact is that the Cell Processor is a mess for developing. The PPE divides the software into multiple threads running into the SPEs, sometimes in an unpredictable way. So you have to write more complicated code for it, and any programmer can tell you, the less complicated your code, the better it is for everyone: The programmer, their boss, the division, the company, the players.
So given the choice between the PS3 Cell and the 360 Xenon, developers are going to choose the Xenon.
First of all, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Incognito are second-party developers, tied by contract as subsidiaries to SCEI. The only first-party games on the PS3 come from SCEI itself, eg. Shadow of the Colossus and Gran Turismo.
Second, as second-party developers they did not choose the PS3. They are required by contract to develop speficially for Sony consoles.
Third, Terminal Reality is a fully third-party company who has developed games for multiple consoles. They are also hardly new, as they've been in the business since 1994. Which in fact makes them older than Incognito Entertainment. I know this, by the way, because TRI is one of the companies I'd like to look into after earning my degree.
See, the problem with arguing about a topic with someone who knows more about that topic than you is that you're probably not going to win.
must have skimmed over you being a game designer, props. 😉
Sony's game division is not losing money, they are infact, gaining. While Sony posted a 39.5% loss over last year overall, Sony gaming announced a 16.8% year-on-year sales increase, resulting in an operating income for the division of $51 million. The PS3 sold 1.56 million unites for the quarter, an increase of 0.86 million over the previous year. As far as software sales go: The company announced sales of 22.8 million units, 18.1 million increase over the same period last year.
PS3 software from EA rose from 18mil to 139 mil, while 360 was 14 mil to 87 mil, and the wii considerably less. The PS3 became the major source of income for EA, and as i stated, a console that seems to require more work, time, effort and money, seems to bring in more profit than the console that does not require these things.
the differences of PS3 vs 360 are not just visually, for the ones i mentioned above, Burnout: 'easier access to online features, and smoother performance online afford PlayStation 3 the edge. Dedicated servers ensure stability during multiplayer races,' COD4 on ps3 has more dedicated servers as well, Peer-to-peer networking over Xbox Live can yield unstable matches, $50-60 can only get you so much. So atleast the online is there is a difference, not only in a free vs hefty price tag, but that PS3 offers some better online performance for certain multi plat titles. Functionality, overall quality and better integrated online will drive sales.
Given the choice, n00b developers who dont wanna fuss are gonna choose 360. While others, ex// Lucas Arts especially has taken the initiative to make PS3 their lead developing platform. As well as lead dev platform for other high profile games.
I dont believe Terminal Reality has ever developed on a next gen platform, specifically PS3/360.
I am definately fighting an uphill battle i wont lie, you are a game designer, you bring excellent points up to defend your argument, i am merely a drop out computer programmer 🙄 but i believe i bring up good points as well. Im going to do as all a favour and end this discussion. Both platforms have the opportunity to bring profit, they have their advantages and disadvantages, its all about choice, if a developer feels PS3 is a waste of time, than it is, but there are other developers that are making great games with that waste of a time, inferior, unfriendly console, and theyre making a living off it too. The PS3's cell arc isnt going to change, and developers have adapted, i hope that more do, i hope that you 'General Kaliero' see the potential of this system rather than always playing it safe and easy with 360.
Originally posted by Outbound
So Im not up to date on stuff at the moment, whats the word on a 360 blu-ray drive add on? Im looking getting a blu ray drive for my pc but if theres a 360 one sitting in development I'd rather wait...
It's been rumored for awhile.
But I thought MS stated that they are not having the blu ray player on the 360 as a peripheral.
The fact that developers HAD to adapt- that it was difficult0 is the sign of a big problem with the PS3- and calling it their job to do so iis faulty reasoning; in absolutely no way at all is it a programmer's job to have to adapt to unnecessarily complex machinery when there are alternatives available. If you make such complex machinery and consider it the duty of everyone working with it to adapt, you are a fool. Sony is guilty of exactly this thinking.
No amount of trying to shore up the PS3 can change the fact that Sony's market lead in the last generation was RIDICULOUSLY large, Microsoft's rep ion the Xbox was poor, and Nintendo was thought by many to be going the way of Sega.
Sony's enormous tactical error with the PS3 has crashed that superiority- a lead so vast that many thought may never be caught up with- in just ONE generation. And a big part of the reason is its impractical arhitecutre and fiddly nature- avoided not by lazy programmers, but deeply practical ones.
The Sony name is so massive, and they have a lot of marketing clout in the industry to get good games on the comsole, that of course it is going to do quite well. But that's not where the goalposts were. PS2 outsolid its rivals COMBINED sales, it had nearly five times more than GC and Xbox individually. Now it is in last place, staggering upwards and trying to claim that it will therefore defeat 360, despite the fact that by the time it actually DOES that, Microsoft will be most of the way to their next console generation.
Sony is losing rep, it is losing exclusives, and despite an upturn in games sales it's still lost an absolute freaking fortune on the PS3 due to high negative margins.
And it's not as if Microsoft does not have its porlbems- because the brand does not do well outside of English speaking countries, hence its poor performance in Japan and continental Europe (note that in the UK, the largest part of the Europe market, the PS3 is doing poorly compared to 360). These are the same problems Microsoft had last gen. And so, as we saw, last gen Sony took advantage of thois to smash Microsoft. THIS gen... they've cocked that up, and given Microaoft an opportunity to dominate the field. They may well take it.
And with this trend- what will happen with the PS4 or 5? They were once a given certainty. Now, Sony is going to have to completely change its strategy because if it carries on in this trend it will be buried in the next generation.
It.s a poor show by Sony and it's because the PS3 is a flawed machine from a marketing point of view. They should have had this in the bag, no contest. It's been a disastrous fumble.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The fact that developers HAD to adapt- that it was difficult0 is the sign of a big problem with the PS3- and calling it their job to do so iis faulty reasoning; in absolutely no way at all is it a programmer's job to have to adapt to unnecessarily complex machinery when there are alternatives available. If you make such complex machinery and consider it the duty of everyone working with it to adapt, you are a fool. Sony is guilty of exactly this thinking.No amount of trying to shore up the PS3 can change the fact that Sony's market lead in the last generation was RIDICULOUSLY large, Microsoft's rep ion the Xbox was poor, and Nintendo was thought by many to be going the way of Sega.
Sony's enormous tactical error with the PS3 has crashed that superiority- a lead so vast that many thought may never be caught up with- in just ONE generation. And a big part of the reason is its impractical arhitecutre and fiddly nature- avoided not by lazy programmers, but deeply practical ones.
The Sony name is so massive, and they have a lot of marketing clout in the industry to get good games on the comsole, that of course it is going to do quite well. But that's not where the goalposts were. PS2 outsolid its rivals COMBINED sales, it had nearly five times more than GC and Xbox individually. Now it is in last place, staggering upwards and trying to claim that it will therefore defeat 360, despite the fact that by the time it actually DOES that, Microsoft will be most of the way to their next console generation.
Sony is losing rep, it is losing exclusives, and despite an upturn in games sales it's still lost an absolute freaking fortune on the PS3 due to high negative margins.
And it's not as if Microsoft does not have its porlbems- because the brand does not do well outside of English speaking countries, hence its poor performance in Japan and continental Europe (note that in the UK, the largest part of the Europe market, the PS3 is doing poorly compared to 360). These are the same problems Microsoft had last gen. And so, as we saw, last gen Sony took advantage of thois to smash Microsoft. THIS gen... they've cocked that up, and given Microaoft an opportunity to dominate the field. They may well take it.
And with this trend- what will happen with the PS4 or 5? They were once a given certainty. Now, Sony is going to have to completely change its strategy because if it carries on in this trend it will be buried in the next generation.
It.s a poor show by Sony and it's because the PS3 is a flawed machine from a marketing point of view. They should have had this in the bag, no contest. It's been a disastrous fumble.
if you're a programmer, and your company wants to make money, you're going to have to learn how to program on a machine, one of those machines may include a PS3. I've taken computer programming and there is a very clear description, i cannot emphasize enough the words "continuous learning". Adapting and learning new code languages are important, if you want to survive as a competant programmer, learn and adapt, there are new languages every year, from COBOL to HTML to SQL and whatever today, they didnt just come out at the same time. But what do i know, im a fool
Naturally those "former" exclusives need to go multiplatform to recoup costs. Simple dollars and dimes. Theres no question that Sony lost a lot of money, they can't pay for exclusives like Microsoft.
360 and PS3 have problems, just choose which problems you can deal with better (unreliability vs high price). The ps3 is behind, everyone probably knows that, but the very fact that in its first year it outsold the 360 in the 360's first year. That is very sad to me. The 360 says they will outsell PS3 in their lifecycle, but how long or short will the 360's lifecycle be? I dont think itll be that long since they already spoke about wanting to get the 720 out before anyone else next next gen, While the PS3 has been praised by developers for being futureproof.
PS3's marketting failed and the initial price was high, some of us moved on.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
if you're a programmer, and your company wants to make money, you're going to have to learn how to program on a machine, one of those machines may include a PS3. I've taken computer programming and there is a very clear description, i cannot emphasize enough the words "continuous learning". Adapting and learning new code languages are important, if you want to survive as a competant programmer, learn and adapt, there are new languages every year, from COBOL to HTML to SQL and whatever today, they didnt just come out at the same time. But what do i know, im a foolNaturally those "former" exclusives need to go multiplatform to recoup costs. Simple dollars and dimes. Theres no question that Sony lost a lot of money, they can't pay for exclusives like Microsoft.
360 and PS3 have problems, just choose which problems you can deal with better (unreliability vs high price). The ps3 is behind, everyone probably knows that, but the very fact that in its first year it outsold the 360 in the 360's first year. That is very sad to me. The 360 says they will outsell PS3 in their lifecycle, but how long or short will the 360's lifecycle be? I dont think itll be that long since they already spoke about wanting to get the 720 out before anyone else next next gen, While the PS3 has been praised by developers for being futureproof.
PS3's marketting failed and the initial price was high, some of us moved on.
Regardless of a programmer's incentive to learn, an awkward system is still an awkward system, especially when compared to at least equally profitable competitors that are simple. No matter how much you try and fly into the face of logic here, the fact that the PS3 is unreasonably awkward to programme for is, and always will be, a negative factor for it- and it is also ENTIRELY the wrong way to bring programming. Simpler is better. The PS3 is simply bad design, and I will bet you any amount that subsequent systems of greater power will NOT be so awkward to design for.- for sure, I don't think Sony will make that mistake again.
You can say you have moded on all you like! Makes no difference to reality at all- because the reality is that the faults are still there and they are still paying.
Again, you are forgetting how much the goalposts have had to move. The question was always meant to be "How much will Sony's sales lead by this time?" It was NEVER meant to be "Will Sony actually ever lead at all?". It's feeble, it really is, and to defend it shows the want of objective sense.
You say that it is 'natural' that people want to go multiplatform. That's another feeble dodge- if it was so 'natural', why didn't they always do it? Simple answer- because they didn't need to when producing exclusively for Sony was all the moneyspinner you needed. it's happened because, again, Sony's thrown it away. It has only become more profitable to go multiplatform because of these design issues in the PS3. Likewise, Microsoft had the same money in the days of the original Xbox as well. That didn't change Sony's position with exclusives. It's not 'natural' at all. It is a result of Sony's cock-up. Something you cannot ignore just by rhetoric about 'moving on'.
Clearly, due to the relative mass gain of success of the 360,m and the mass fall in success of the PS3, the PS3's problems are MUCH bigger, so regardless of which one you 'think you can deal with better', this is again a Sony failing.
What use is being futurerpoof, btw, if the 720 beats it? That's another problem here, you see, because the PS3 has no current demonstable superiroity, of any degree, to the 360. They can talk about the 'future' of a 10 year lifecycle all they like. It will be worth nothing if the machine is comprehensively trumped. It seems to be that Microsoft have a far more sensible idea of a lifecycle.
So yes- it remains the attitude of a fool for someone to expect programmers to all have to adapt to a more diffiuclt programming experience on a platofmr which does not give results in any way proportionate for that difficulty increase- and Sony expecting it to happen is what has caused this downturn. Yes, programmers need to adapt, change and advance. That does not equate to a needlessly complex system being in any way desirable. The sales figures reflect that.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of a programmer's incentive to learn, an awkward system is still an awkward system, especially when compared to at least equally profitable competitors that are simple. No matter how much you try and fly into the face of logic here, the fact that the PS3 is unreasonably awkward to programme for is, and always will be, a negative factor for it- and it is also ENTIRELY the wrong way to bring programming. Simpler is better. The PS3 is simply bad design, and I will bet you any amount that subsequent systems of greater power will NOT be so awkward to design for.- for sure, I don't think Sony will make that mistake again.You can say you have moded on all you like! Makes no difference to reality at all- because the reality is that the faults are still there and they are still paying.
Again, you are forgetting how much the goalposts have had to move. The question was always meant to be "How much will Sony's sales lead by this time?" It was NEVER meant to be "Will Sony actually ever lead at all?". It's feeble, it really is, and to defend it shows the want of objective sense.
You say that it is 'natural' that people want to go multiplatform. That's another feeble dodge- if it was so 'natural', why didn't they always do it? Simple answer- because they didn't need to when producing exclusively for Sony was all the moneyspinner you needed. it's happened because, again, Sony's thrown it away. It has only become more profitable to go multiplatform because of these design issues in the PS3. Likewise, Microsoft had the same money in the days of the original Xbox as well. That didn't change Sony's position with exclusives. It's not 'natural' at all. It is a result of Sony's cock-up. Something you cannot ignore just by rhetoric about 'moving on'.
Clearly, due to the relative mass gain of success of the 360,m and the mass fall in success of the PS3, the PS3's problems are MUCH bigger, so regardless of which one you 'think you can deal with better', this is again a Sony failing.
What use is being futurerpoof, btw, if the 720 beats it? That's another problem here, you see, because the PS3 has no current demonstable superiroity, of any degree, to the 360. They can talk about the 'future' of a 10 year lifecycle all they like. It will be worth nothing if the machine is comprehensively trumped. It seems to be that Microsoft have a far more sensible idea of a lifecycle.
So yes- it remains the attitude of a fool for someone to expect programmers to all have to adapt to a more diffiuclt programming experience on a platofmr which does not give results in any way proportionate for that difficulty increase- and Sony expecting it to happen is what has caused this downturn. Yes, programmers need to adapt, change and advance. That does not equate to a needlessly complex system being in any way desirable. The sales figures reflect that.
the cell arc is complex and difficult, developers that have chosen to try and develop on the PS3 have had problems, with some succeeded and some end up with a mess. What do you say to those developers that have seen the potential of the cell power, and have done amazing jobs??
im not arguing about Sony's fall from grace, from first to last. That is there current position, im not arguing that. However i as a gamer, is not interested in a wii, and has already owned a 360, and have moved to PS3.
Design issues and inferior multiplatform games on PS3 are a thing of the past. I have to mentioned yet again, DMC4, Burnout, COD4 all player better on PS3, because they are developed first on that system and then ported to others. It is a thing of the past. Infact, EA's multiplatform games, make more money from PS3 than any other console. MGS4 sold about 4 million copies so far, close to Gears of War sales. The PS3 can be a source of profit for developers. Unfortunately for Sony, many developers that held the 'exclusives' were hesistant that they could make money from the PS3 so they naturally moved multi plat. to recoup costs.
when i mentioned "which you can deal with" i meant the problems with both consoles, such as unreliability with the 360, the ps3 is expensive, price etc. Which problems can you deal with better? Can you name some problems with these consoles, cuz i cant. 😕
the XBOX 720 is a terrible idea, it will alienate Xbox 360 owners that have "jumped in". I was alraedy alienated as a 360 owner when i found out that future hardware was more efficient than the one i owned, and the fact that mine didnt have hdmi!! 😠
i expect programmers to adapt, and a good amount has. They've gotten around intial complexities of the cell arc. It is awkward, impractical, overly complex, and all that. But they've gotten around it, and the only thing you can do is say that it is. but what im gonna do is now enjoy the games that come from that complex machine 😉
The PS3 is increasingly becoming the lead platform for development, developers have chosen to make their games on an impractical, annoying, complex, non friendly console. With multi platform games like DMC4, COD4 and Burnout paving the way for superior multiplatform games, you can keep calling me a fool, how cocky sony is , and how negative the cell arc is, but im going to continue enjoying PS3 games 🙂
How is the Xbox 720 (or whatever the next system is going to be called) a terrible idea? Because it's a new system that will eventually require people to upgrade to get if they want to buy new games? That's completely ridiculous logic. By that, every system ever MADE was a terrible idea.
And adapting doesn't necessarily mean having to learn some brand new, overly-complicated and awkward programming. Choosing to program for the machine that is simpler to deal with causes a higher profit margin per game, because there's less work involved in it. That's also adapting - adapting to current market trends.
BTW, I have never heard anyone say COD4 runs better on the PS3 than the 360.
And you can enjoy your games all you want, but that doesn't change things at all.