It seems the High Calibur developers, Naughty Dog, Ubi Soft, Infinity Ward, Insomniac etc. seem to get it done and done right. Then you have valve who albeit I love Half Life, after that then what? You know I remember reading an article during the PS2's life cycle about how Japanses Developers look at american developers and valve was mention then to, for being to linear in thinking and always doing things the same way= lazy mofo's in the end. Atleast Carmack of ID says he likes teh 360 better, however he can still do great things on the PS3. Thats the difference between talent and professionalism in the gaming biz.

www.rehashed-antisony-news.com

do we not get tired of seeing the same 5 stories over and over

No one is sending mixed messages gamers read what devs say and look at the games.

I can't believe Sony fans still blame EA when they're not the only devs with the issues. It has been said many times the 360 is hard to develope for to but the tools make it easier vs the lack of them for PS3. Don't let 2 or 3 devs lead you on.

If some devs say they have a problem their opinions are just as valid as the ones saying they don't. Every game is different so one devs view means nothing to another.

Well Carmack made it pretty clear that the PS3 was harder to develop for and others have made it clear that the PS3 is a pain! It seems as if this now all of the sudden PS3 is easy to develop for mentality is just nothing more than a means to sell there products and change the already terrible image of developing on PS3! It's a shame a game like COD4 was downgraded just to please ps3 owners and give them faith in there system!

wow candystop that was such a ..........fanboy comment.

No games are downgraded to fit on the ps3, if any game would be downgraded because of a specific system it would be the 360.

Basically because the ps3 allows more space and better graphics and whatnot.

Look at what Take 2 has said about L.A NOIRe.

Anyway, the ps3 is'nt a pain to develop for, it's really about who the developers are.

Games like CoD4, AC, UT3, U:DF, R&C:ToD

are a big fat FÜCK YOU to the following guys:

Gabe Newell
John Carmack
Hironobu Sakaguchi
Tomonobu Itagaki
Jason Booth

Is calculus a b*tch to do? well for some it is and some it isnt.

look at Uncharted Drakes fortune and tell me or COD 4!! enough said.

R@chet & Cl@NK Future: TOD/ INSOMNIAC

u got that right

Dont 4get Warhawk! 32players online lag free. Macro and Micro math at work and till the 360 can make a game like warhawk i will continue to say the PS3 is the best system

not saying the 360 is junk because its not. Unless it bricks out

Yeahhhh !!!

As per the article. It's all about how much money a dev. can wring out of developing a game. As is evidenced by most "exclusives" being "timed exclusives" and going mulitplatform.... They don't wan't to "waste" resources and time to develop for specific install bases. Great for business, sucks for gamers. It has nothing to do with making groundbreaking games for specific hardware unfortunately.
:(

i agreed with the part in the article where it said the ps3 isn't necessarily harder to develop for, its just different. why is it different? because its a multicore cpu.

developers are generally behind the curve when it comes to hardware optimization. because look at all the processors coming out for PC. ALL of them are dual core, quad core, octo core now. but (some) programs are still being written for a single core processor. once the devs catch up and begin to write code that fully uses the multicore architecture, we'll see some truly stunning programs and games. and what i mean by fully uses is having one core process physics, another for wire-animation frames, another for AI, etc, very much like the SPU system is set up on ps3.

i know the 360 has a multicore processor as well, but included is a compiler that takes code that prioritizes its path through the 3 cores. this allows for programers to just pile data into the compiler, rather than program specific tasks for each of the cores. this allows the 360 to be much simpler for developers to develop for, but at the same time it doesn't utilize a true multicore environment.

whereas the architecture of cell allows for the programers to do whatever they want whenever they want with any one of the 6 SPUs available. while not true processing cores, they crunch through numbers and thus do calculations very effectively. which is why you hear "cell can do physic very well, cell can do large scale simulations very well." but what you don't hear is that cell can do wireframes very well too. so instead of having the RSX process the frames and textures as with a traditional graphics card in a pc or the 360, it can just focus on pumping out textures, which is something it does very well.

hence the unique, but effective, yet challenging architecture of the ps3.

my one fanboy jibe. you wouldn't take your Ferrari to Midas for maintenance would you?

ps. i went through this phase where i wanted to be a hardware/electrical engineer. so i have a fairly good understanding of what i'm talking about.

mystery disagreers ftw.

I dont know really what to say because the article provides opinion on both matters.

But when it comes to a game they want to sell it is all about them overhyping the game. Bottom line developers are going to do what is best for them. And this generartion that means the large developers will make Multiplatform games that will look simular on both consoles. Then there will be some games first party that will look stellar on both consoles.The only difference right now is Sony screwed themselves by not having good development tools ready with the release of the PS3. The true power of both of these machinces will not be seen until 3 - 4 years from now. Because if some developer tells you he is using all 7 spu's and both threads for the PS3 or all 3 cpu's and 6 threads for the 360 to the maximum that the machines can handle they are lying. Final word is just release some fun games so people can play them.

after Call of duty 4 came out everyone seems to have incredible confidence in the machine, lets wait and see

No.

I don't know about the PS3, but a couple of my managers are... :)

Developers are complaining since this is different than the good ol' days of single threaded programming. But they really need to adapt. Not only is PS3 multi-cored. So is the 360.

I wonder whether the developers will complain when the Octo-core processors arrive. As I said, they really need to adapt, not to meet the needs of PS3, but to keep up with all future hardware. Rest assured gentlemen, this is merely a phase.

... and I STILL don't care what comes out of his mouth!!!

As for the debate of ease of development for PS3...

... how is it any different from learning to use any kind of new technology? Adapt an evolve, Cipriani... Adapt and evolve...

But developers seem to be learning quite rapidly.

If you're coming from the PC side of the world, regular devs understand cores and threads reasonably well enough, meaning multi-threaded programming.

More cores are being added and so programming languages and compilers are currently undergoing a lot of research WRT multi-core programming optimizations. So investment in learning more of multi-core programming is actually good for the dev's future prospects.

Multi-SPE programming while sharing two threads seems like a thought project that you'd come up with in a computer theory course. "In what situations will this architecture be less or more performant than a generalized multi-core processor with independent threads?"

The best scenario would be if all the SPEs were doing the same exact thing on a time relative basis. Sort of like scaling an image (DVD to HDTV, each SPE take a small chunk of the image to upscale) or completing a parallel set of calculations that took virtually exact same amount of time (Folding@home). The limiter here is the two threads and non-shared memory between the SPEs.

While interesting as an experiment or a HD scaler, this type of architecture really has nothing to do with designing and developing interesting games. This is why Gabe put out the rant. How can he ask his devs to learn this thing which is only useful for this project? The best solution would be to ship it out to a 3rd party and let them deal with it. Let his devs focus on making games and let others take care of porting. Seems like this is probably what's happening at other dev shops as well.

As a general comment, please stop it with the "devs are just lazy". This type of comment is idiotic. If they're like any devs that I know, they're probably at the top 5% of the population in terms of intelligence, capability, motivation and work ethic. We all have deadlines that we have to work against.

By the time most dev's figure out how to use the power it'll be time for the next gen. Just like the PS2.

yeah the system that made record breaking sales and to this day holds a record.

I don't know wether you are a 360 fanboy or not, I really don't care, but you should think more before you type

I'm not really a tech head, but I've read a number of times that it comes down to planning. I guess if you've become laxed in the way you use the resources when creating a game you become use to becoming sloppy and wasting. If you have to plan out your memory allocation and overall functionallity of the game code you are maximizing the code and game.

Don't let all this nonsense cloud your judement, its like "who are you going to belive me or your lying eyes?" 1st and second party games look amazing and some 3rd party the exception is when they port a game designed for another console onto a console with different workings. I've said time and time again the best games will have to be developed sepeartly not ported when you have two very different hardwares.

My other point is that its their job for programmers to learn this stuff. If no one had to learn new things then accountants would still be using pen and paper to keep records and manage funds.

The truth is Sony is a innovating company they bring ideas and games that you don't see on the 360. They make a decision with their hardware and stick with it, the one thing I love about the ps3 is the potential for future hardware and software updates. It has enough things to guarentee its life cycle and the potential to even add elements Sony hasn't even thought of yet.

this: I'm a PS3 owner and I love my system and don't regret my purchase at all. I just think Sony could have made it a little easier on the devs had they bridged the system's RAM. COD4, R&C, Killzone, FFXIII and Uncharted (drools) all show the system's power/potential so at this point it may be a non-issue for devs. But had the memory been similiar to that of 360 (unified), I think we'd see the PS3 blowing 360 away now and not 2 years from now.

The reason the ps3 sucks is because it was built with selling blu-ray players in mind, instead of gaming.

man o man.there are some lazy bastards working for sum of these companys.like EA with the frame rate.GET TO WORK AND FIX IT OR GET THE F OUT!infitry ward should all get raises,these guy care about making games and not just going home early.

no, the wii is.

thats all part of the game, look at the ps2, developers hated its guts, they would much rather make a game easily on the xbox with better graphics. but since it had the enormous install base from the playstation 1, the games would no doubt sell very well. but now that nobody is buying a ps3, developers are having a hard time finding a reason to spend millions of dollars just make one game that might not sell well. my advice, get to know to the hardware, make an exclusive game that kicks major ass, sell some consoles, optimize your code, make the sequel even better. now, with all these crazy ideas floating around in my head, i would think that making a decent game for the ps3 wouldnt be so hard