Believes this is an opinion shared by all developers who have been working on all the platforms.
Gamasutra recently caught up with Hitoshi Hasegawa, the new leader of Team Ninja following the highly publicised departure of Tomonobu Itagaki. While Hasegawa certainly doesn't currently carry the same superstar popularity of Itagaki, he's certainly making an effort to get noticed.
Speaking of the PlayStation 3, Hasegawa said: "For the PlayStation 3, we do not believe that we've seen the fullest of its potential from any standpoint: from a developer standpoint, and also a consumer standpoint - and just in products in general.
"The developers have been releasing products, but there is a bigger potential. There is greater potential, and we see that possibility the most in the PlayStation 3. It's going to be up to us developers and Sony to make sure that that does happen."
He didn't stop with there, going on to describe the PS3 as the most powerful of all the current platforms.
"For any developer that's been working on all of the platforms that are available today, I think they would agree that the PlayStation 3 is the most powerful system out there," claimed Hasegawa.
Could this mean Team Ninja will begin to offer increased support for the PS3, having previously only released Ninja Gaiden: Sigma for the console?
Do you agree that the PS3 is the most powerful console? Let us know in the comments section below.
» Go to 's original post
Whilst I wait for that to happen I'm quite happy with the 360 in the meantime, and the big gamble for Sony is that if in a couple of years time they start to really show the untapped power of the PS3 with a couple of 2011 blockbuster titles that gobsmack everyone Microsoft could possibly counter it by announcing the Nextbox.
Sony trying to stick to a 10-year cycle could be a huge risk for them. Luck is on their side though, they used the PS3 to help win the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war and seeing as they pulled that off so well I wouldn't bet against them.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
1 Economy not great now, 2 years time will still be recovering.
2 Have to get people to buy the thing just because 22 million have a 360 theres no guarantees people will move over to the new system see ps2 to ps3.
3 Then theres the developers who by this time would again have to develop separately for nextbox and ps3 or suffer poor ports like we have seen from ps3.
» Go to 's original post
*nods head in agreement*Last edited on Tue 4 November 2008 by Rogue Soul
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
There's so little in it.
Then you compare to a PC and relaise there is no comparison.
The PS3 is basically an ancient Nvidia 7800/7900 GPU.
It's stoneage tech, even with a Cell propping it up.
» Go to 's original post
There's so little in it.
Then you compare to a PC and relaise there is no comparison.
The PS3 is basically an ancient Nvidia 7800/7900 GPU.
It's stoneage tech, even with a Cell propping it up.
» Go to DaveBG's original post
There's so little in it.
Then you compare to a PC and relaise there is no comparison.
The PS3 is basically an ancient Nvidia 7800/7900 GPU.
It's stoneage tech, even with a Cell propping it up.
Does any of this crap matter? Really? What do people buy consoles for? To play games! It does not make one bit of difference if one console is better than the other if there are no games for them that people want to play!
I keep hearing the PS3 has all this power but, every review I read and every game I have played that has came out for both the PS3 and 360, the PS3 has framerate issues or worse. What good is all that power if you can't play a damn game on it without issue?
» Go to 's original post
To clear alot of things up there is no such thing as a poor port. If you guys don't already know all games are made on PC first even though consoles have dev kits (these are just here to give developers an idea of system limitations, and to give them an idea of which code to write the game in) then they put onto consoles. Memory is more of an issue than code. Without code the video would be still pictures, code is basically just for movement ask any developer. It only changes based on exactly what you want in terms of interaction. Antianilizing takes up memory (this varies) and rendering a game in high def takes up memory (eg.720p takes up 32MB RAM). Although its called video RAM sound is also a part of it. So out of 256MB RAM you would minus 32MB for 720p and in most cases 7 - 10 MB for sound leaving in most cases any where from 214 - 217MB for on screen visuals. Do the same with the 512MB RAM and you are left with 470 - 473MB RAM, which is actually more than twice what the amount. People think the 360 has twice the RAM but from a developer's point it has more. That is y ps3 games are cached. If you want to go 1080p thats even worse because it requires more RAM. That is y in most cases 360 seems to handle 1080p better. Developers need RAM and lots of it.Last edited on Tue 4 November 2008 by FantasyMeister
» Go to 's original post
if all that stuff you just wrote was correct, then I must ask what the problem is. You say it has failed because it hasnt got 500mb of ram, then go on to explain in detail how developers can get round this with no problem ???. is there a disadvantage to what you just wrote?
You are also very missleading as the ps3 does have 500mb of ram (just split in to two lots of 250, with the 250 part to the GPU having much faster speed than normal ram).
by the way, isnt GT prologue and killzone utilizing the cell for graphics, herd something somewhere about the gpu just texturizing in killzone 2. they look like they are doing ok...... Actually this is all a load of crap. All the developers are saying that its the more powerfull console if coded for the correct way (all though difficult at this ealy stage of its life cycle), but it is starting to show with some recent games. ....
Trouble is, theres so much missleading rubbish on the net, im not sure what i just said is deffinately correct.
Also got to love it when some goon comes on a ps3 web site/artical boasting how pc's will eat it for breakfast.... .."my ferrari is well faster than your fiat punto".... would be good if you could get a pc with similar spec as a ps3 even at the moment, but I still think you would be paying a small fortune, deffo if you had a bluray drive.
» Go to 's original post
Dont know if this will interest you, but heres a link.... IBM rendering a moving scene under linux (no access to RSX ) all this is just rendered from the cell. Now its not as good as a dedicated graphics processor (yes processor) i will admit, but could this mean that the cell will be able to perform some of the tasks ment for the RSX. Asisting the GPU if you like. If this is the case, then its not as simple as you have put it above. ..
Now im no tech head so correct me if im wrong (hopefully with a constructive reply that I can learn from or gives me another angle on the subject :-)
link......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFO...eature=related
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.