Devs are NOT to blame for Ports.

LastDance6608d ago

Wait...wait.. so who takes the blame then. Their mums?
you argument has 1 giant hole in it which you havent explained to us less tech savvy people.

Why can some ports be good and others not?

HarryEtTubMan6605d ago

This FAILS

Reply Agree 4 Disagree 3

mightydog016600d ago

the specs u are putting out is not right ps3 as 250mgs split so total 500mgs like 360 which as 500mgs shared with spu and gpu and u left out spu and cell.... so get your facts right i can go on to prove the ps3 is more power than 360 but im not like you just more BS we will see this year when games start showing the ps3 gfx power and when they tap into it fully its going to be lot lot better next year?

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 0

ruibing6597d ago

Seriously this is a terrible representation of facts. I am an electrical and computer engineer and I don't even pretend to be able to judge performance based solely on the technology of two very different consoles.

The memory comment was just the most obvious. Saying 360's 512MB shared memory means that it has 512MB for both CPU and GPU is pretty off. It would be as if I was broke and got a paycheck for $1000 and I were to tell you I now have $1000 in cash AND in the bank. The underlining technology between the two memories are different. In fact, the PS3's XDR is arguably faster on white paper. Not to mention the fact that it is also designed under an unified memory architecture (refer to research.scea.com/ps3_deferred _shading.pdf):

"The system's unified memory architecture allows
the Cell/B.E. and GPU to exchange data through shared textures."

cputeq6599d ago

I wish people that had no F'ing clue what they're talking about would stop spouting off numbers, pretending they have the smallest *iota* of what the hell they mean.

*Properly* done games will look nearly IDENTICAL ON BOTH CONSOLES.

Ports *not* done properly don't run like ass because the PS3 is any less powerful - they run like ass because developers are too lazy/poor/time-constrained to properly recode a game originally designed for a TRIPLE-CORE CPU with Unified Memory architecture to a SINGLE-CORE CPU with 6 (effective) SPEs (with their own memory pool) and the RSX with *its* own memory pool.

They consoles are radically different, architecture wise, and wrapping one's head around PS3 programming is very different than the 360 environment.

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 0

ATLRoAcH6599d ago (Edited 6599d ago )

...is what hurts it.CoD:4 was built separate and it is the best multiplatform game there is.If a game is built on the PS3 and ported to 360 the 360 version will suffer will suffer.If Infinity Ward can do it than other developers have no excuse.

Says you6599d ago

much the console that is working is using considering having a unified memory is not a good idea since it depends in how much the other system that is not working uses the memory so what does that got to do with the multiplatforms and yes it does got to do with devs either they don't know there c++ right or they just don't want to bother with the working console for god sakes I have not yet heard from any devs about the memory, name one game companie that is talking about that? if there was we would've heard it already or somebody would have posted that!.

Statix6599d ago

You seem quite biased in the approach you take in comparing the specifications of the two platforms. Such as only posting the aspects in which the 360 has the (arguable) upper hand, and also making it appear as though the PS3 has half the memory of the 360, when in fact the two are very, very close in terms of amounts of RAM.

I think, also, the truth of the matter is that the RAM the 10mb of EDRAM on the 360 is in many situations more of a limiting factor than a boon for a game's visuals, and that you neglect to mention the difficulties that would occur in the opposite direction, such as the more capable Cell processor, the built-in hard drive for virtual memory, and the much larger optical disc format in Blu-Ray.

Anego Montoya FTMFW6599d ago (Edited 6599d ago )

the ports are a result of them working on the ps3 less.

and this RAM argument is becoming OLD.

ALOT of company are making the ps3 their main platform(criterion, lucas arts and more)

sorry man. but, your living in the past.

people had problem DEVing for ps2 at first aswell, and we all know how that turned out.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

WATCH.

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 0

6599d ago

BlackCountryBob6598d ago

Congratulations, you have been able to copy and paste some techno gabble stats from a wikipedia article. This "blog" pot contains no opinion, no coherent thought or even the simple act of analysing the data you present.

There is much more to why some ports are bad than tech specs or lazy developers, unfortunately you have been unable to give an insight into what these reasons may be.

mattnz6597d ago

I thought this argument had finaly died.. As you point out (but evidently didn't read) the x360 has 512 mb SHARED memory. The PS3 has 2x 252 mb dedicated memory. So roughly speaking, they HAVE THE SAME!

ChickeyCantor6596d ago

Specs don't mean much to us, its up the developers to use engines that work efficiently with the 360 or PS3.....

AIZEN SOZUKE6595d ago

to humiliate the false statements about it being whatever and whatever else in years coming, ps3 is and always will be the dream machine, nothing can keep up.