Games to lead on PS3 as it's "easier to lead with the most powerful, both in terms of AI and graphics".
Speaking in a recent interview with VideoGamer.com, Sony Computer Entertainment UK managing director Ray Maguire has suggested that future multi-platform titles from third-parties will be led on PS3 and will have to be downgraded for systems with weaker processors.
Discussing the topic of third-party publisher support on the PS3, Maguire said: "I think we now have an install base which is big enough for any third party to want to develop for. Now the decision making part of development is which do you lead your development on? Is it easier to lead with the most powerful, both in terms of AI and graphics, i.e. PS3 and then just remove part of the functionality for the processors that aren't quite as strong? I would imagine that's very much part of the thought process now from a studio development point of view."
We're already seeing multi-format titles being lead on PS3, including the great looking Mirror's Edge from DICE, but judged on the released demo the game still looks marginally sharper on Xbox 360.
Do you agree with Ray Maguire? Should all developers be looking first to PS3? Let us know in the comments section below.
» Go to 's original post
This is another example of deceptive and misleading marketing we have come to expect from SCEI.
» Go to 's original post
PSN ID:Don_Corleone_Z
XBLID:MK Vito
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
The truth is that the teams who port 360 games are:
a) not the original team that made the game and
b) not yet sufficiently up on the PS3 hardware
Hardly hard evidence that the PS3 is less powerful. On paper the PS3 is more powerful at general processing and less powerful in the graphics processing department, though actual graphical ability is the same. The balance comes with good programming.
What the 360 has in it's favour is that it's pretty close to a PC architecture and programmers already know how to get the best from it. The PS3 is something new, as "any 3rd party programmers who can comment objectively." will tell you.
It doesn't make the original comment any less misleading, really, but it does mean your comments are unfounded.
» Go to 's original post
We're seeing the commercials for Gears of War 2 now, and it's definitely looking extremely well-polished, and on the other side, we're seeing some absolutely jaw-dropping screens/in-game footage from Killzone 2 (which is right around the corner). It should definitely be an interesting comparison, to see how these two match up to each other graphically. Additionally, when FFXIII finally hits stores, we should have yet another great example of what these two machines can do, as everyone knows the PS3 has been the lead platform for that game for years.
What this means, is we'll see FFXIII on both machines respectively, but the games (knowing SE), should be optimized for both consoles. I think this is a good thing, and what I mean by optimization again, we come to playing to each machines strengths. If the 360 can provide FSAA better than the PS3, so be it, however, in that same regard, the PS3 can crunch physics, AI, and provide deferred rendering in places the 360 could not.
Unfortunately, up to this point, the middleware/engines for both machines have been developed so that what we're seeing is a final product that produces roughly the same results on both machines. I disagree with this approach, develope to each of their strengths and let the consumer decide which is more important.
Morne
» Go to 's original post
360 is awesome console but its nearly at it limit, and I own one and enjoy it imensley, but dont confuse lazy half arsed 360 ports as an indication of an inferior processor, PS£ has a long way to go to reach its limit
» Go to 's original post
There are many articles that speak to the differences and weaknesses of both systems. I think if MS had waited to release the 360, they could have resolved their heating problem, but then they wouldn't have had the jump on Sony, and they would have not been as successful. They made up for it by offering a good repair policy.
Anyway, this article isn't slanted, but of course the person they interviewed is going to have a slanted view, he's promoting his own company's product. A Microsoft rep would do the same.
The thing is, you look at what Microsoft is doing w/ the Xbox and they are killing the PS3 in my opinion. The games for the 360 are awesome, the online content is very robust, and they keep pumping it out. Yes you have to pay for the LIVE experience, but it ROCKS! Sony's online PSN is free, but sucks... I'm a cheapskate, but I like quality, and the xbox online experience has quality in spades.Last edited on Mon 3 November 2008 by FantasyMeister
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
HALo3 .. 640p/zero AA, poor AF
KZ1 .. 720p/2-4QxAA, good AF, etc.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
Buy the time that even becomes apparent the next XBOX will be right around the corner and then the same will be said from the XBOX camp..lol
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
All of theose games that are released run amazingly on both system. Which cannot be said for games that were lead on 360.
PS3 as lead is the SMART thing to do.
» Go to 's original post
You don't support your developers Sony, so they will lead on whichever system they damn well please. Make it easier to develop for and give them the market by stopping PS2 from undercutting PS3 as well as 360 embarassing you in Japan. Perhaps then developers will invest more in developing on your platform.
» Go to 's original post
> so stop coming on here with fancy words trying to make people think you know what your on about.
Surely I do. I hold a Master's degree in CS and works as a programmer at Wall Street.
You are not going to find single 3rd party programmer praising PS3.
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.