Does the 360 hold the ps3 back?

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Huh? That was a reason?

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just more easy to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Do you suppose they might think 360 1st is because they will probably sell more copies due to the fact there are more 360's sold out there?

i agree with that, but it was also being developed for because it was released first and the amount of developers microsoft had on board, hence microsoft's muscle in the market. It's that whole what came first, the chicken or the egg, would hte 360 be selling more if it didn't have developers developing 1st for it? Just asking the question. What do you think? Does it?

ps2 was holding the xbox back so yes/maybe/how the hell am i suppose to know

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

Fizzman

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

Deiuos

They are almost exactly the same in terms of performance with each doing 1-2 things slightly better then the other to the point of it being a neglible gain.

[QUOTE="Deiuos"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

Fizzman

They are almost exactly the same in terms of performance with each doing 1-2 things slightly better then the other to the point of it being a neglible gain.

The price is holding the PS3 back.

EDIT: excuse this post

Not even Microsoft or Sony can give a honest answer to this one.

No. Actually, it pushes it forward. Imagine if there was no XBOX to set a graphical standard with multiplats and games like Gears of War... The PS3 would be competing visually against the Wii. And you know how everyone says the PS3 is hard to develop for? Imagine how much excuse PS3 devs would have to slack off developing for it when its only competition in visuals was basically a last gen system. There would be no "Oh, this game looks better on XBOX" for the consumer to say as incentive for PS3 devs to *really* push for better looking games. And fact is, the XBOX has many, many better looking multiplats and some of the best looking console games this gen. If it weren't there as a contrast and competition to the PS3, PS3 devs wouldn't have any need to try and squeeze the most out of the system they could. In short? The XBOX is pushing the PS3 forward, not holding it back.Shafftehr

The only reason people dev on the 360 first and foremost is because that's the one that's probably going to be the most profitable.

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="Deiuos"] I seriously doubt they're "identical."Deiuos

They are almost exactly the same in terms of performance with each doing 1-2 things slightly better then the other to the point of it being a neglible gain.

umm 360 has slightly better AA abilitiesand Textures, whereas the PS3 has better shadows and physics.

The PS3 wouldn't compete visually with the Wii, because there's no competition in that department. Though, I agree with your thoughts on 360 games pushing PS3 games -- that is a high possibility.Deiuos

No. Actually, it pushes it forward. Imagine if there was no XBOX to set a graphical standard with multiplats and games like Gears of War... The PS3 would be competing visually against the Wii. And you know how everyone says the PS3 is hard to develop for? Imagine how much excuse PS3 devs would have to slack off developing for it when its only competition in visuals was basically a last gen system. There would be no "Oh, this game looks better on XBOX" for the consumer to say as incentive for PS3 devs to *really* push for better looking games. And fact is, the XBOX has many, many better looking multiplats and some of the best looking console games this gen. If it weren't there as a contrast and competition to the PS3, PS3 devs wouldn't have any need to try and squeeze the most out of the system they could. In short? The XBOX is pushing the PS3 forward, not holding it back.Shafftehr

the diffrence in power between 360 and PS3 is so petite it really doesn't matter when it comes to one of those platforms holding back the other

[QUOTE="Deiuos"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

They are almost exactly the same in terms of performance with each doing 1-2 things slightly better then the other to the point of it being a neglible gain.

Fizzman

umm 360 has slightly better AA abilitiesand Textures, whereas the PS3 has better shadows and physics.

PS3 doesn't support AA at all as far as I know. And as he said. the 360 usually has better textures. but the PS3 has, I don't wanna say better, but more advanced lighting techniques. And better physics.

The good thing about the PS3 being great with lighting is, great lighting with good textures can actualy do more for the graphics then great textures with good lighting. See gears 2 compared to killzone 2 for something that shows this in motion. both are fantastic looking games but KZ2 just has that edge because pf the dynamic lighting. and the physics are awesome unlike gears's ragdoll physics.

no, i don't think so because i remember reading a article saying that both of the processors are the same just they are made from different companies.xscott1018

no...The PS3's cell is a number crunching machine. it can handle physics very easily because of this. and the Xenon...well I don't know much about it or what it excells in. but im fairly sure it's a more open processor. the dev's can use it to help pretty much any other part of the system.

In any case, they're both VASTLY diffrent processors.

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

Fizzman

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Article

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

Article

yes, note ps3 exclusives are graphically/technically better and devs r not focusing more are 360 bc it will sell more, number show that now multyplatform games sell about equall even though 360 has 7mill lead in console saleswinner-ps3

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

Article

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

navyguy21

Article

Not to be a wiseass navyguy, but I've read that article and I probably know more about this stuff than you do. I know you are being a wiseass. AS far as your multiplat argument the 360 and ps3 are drastically different architecture's and if a game is designed using the 360's architecture and then ported to the ps3 the ps3 is going to suffer. It's a very simple concept. I realize the 360 has a superior gpu. It also has 3 cores, but most of the multiplats are not using the spu's to their potential if at all. The multiplat battle is basically just a battle of gpu's hence why the 360 games look better. If games were being developed utilizing the ps3's spu's it's been shown it can do certain things the 360 can't. The same can be said vice versa as well. The 360 hardware is also much better at rendering certain things. Each system has it's strength. The question I was posing was is the ps3's hardware being somewhat untapped because most of these developers or at least the multiplat ones are developing for a standard architecture and most of the graphics are being rendered by the gpu. It was more a question regarding are we seeing the ps3's full potential at this point? I wasn't saying either way. I beileve the 360 is capable of rendering certain things from a graphical perspective the ps3 can't because of the rsx's limited shader architecture. But the cell is also capable of helping although it's limited because of bandwith issues. If you look at gears vs killzone, killzone does certain things and the enviroments are much more realistic looking but they also aren't as detailed in certain areas as gears is.

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Actually PS3 holds back 360, with its separted last gen RAM design and the last gen afterthought GPU

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

obamanian

Actually PS3 holds back 360, with its separted last gen RAM design and the last gen afterthought GPU

but developers are developing 1st for the 360 and then porting so how is the ps3 holding the 360 back?

Eh... no.

The power difference between both consoles is minimal, so there's nothing that could possibly indicate that one console is holding back the other.

[QUOTE="obamanian"]

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Actually PS3 holds back 360, with its separted last gen RAM design and the last gen afterthought GPU

but developers are developing 1st for the 360 and then porting so how is the ps3 holding the 360 back?

Actually when a game is planned for all systems, all systems hardware is considered from the start, otherwise the PS3 versions could take another year to port

Eh... no. The power difference of both consoles minimal, so there's nothing that could possibly indicate that one console is holding back the other.IronBass

Well, considering the textures used in RE5 on PS3, and even KZ2, i would say PS3 RAM design is the worst limiting factor in console games this generation

They can't even fix the issueit in exclusives, so multipltfroms would take an even bigger hit

If they were made with 360 in mind could look way better

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Article

Not to be a wiseass navyguy, but I've read that article and I probably know more about this stuff than you do. I know you are being a wiseass. AS far as your multiplat argument the 360 and ps3 are drastically different architecture's and if a game is designed using the 360's architecture and then ported to the ps3 the ps3 is going to suffer. It's a very simple concept. I realize the 360 has a superior gpu. It also has 3 cores, but most of the multiplats are not using the spu's to their potential if at all. The multiplat battle is basically just a battle of gpu's hence why the 360 games look better. If games were being developed utilizing the ps3's spu's it's been shown it can do certain things the 360 can't. The same can be said vice versa as well. The 360 hardware is also much better at rendering certain things. Each system has it's strength. The question I was posing was is the ps3's hardware being somewhat untapped because most of these developers or at least the multiplat ones are developing for a standard architecture and most of the graphics are being rendered by the gpu. It was more a question regarding are we seeing the ps3's full potential at this point? I wasn't saying either way. I beileve the 360 is capable of rendering certain things from a graphical perspective the ps3 can't because of the rsx's limited shader architecture. But the cell is also capable of helping although it's limited because of bandwith issues. If you look at gears vs killzone, killzone does certain things and the enviroments are much more realistic looking but they also aren't as detailed in certain areas as gears is.

I honestly wasnt trying to be a wiseass:|

And way to assume you know more than i do, when will get paid to do this :|

Why are you so confrontational, i thought you created this thread for some real answers, now its moving over to the flamebait side :|

Are you ok?? You wanna take a nap or something :|

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Eh... no. The power difference of both consoles minimal, so there's nothing that could possibly indicate that one console is holding back the other.obamanian

Well, considering the textures used in RE5 on PS3, and even KZ2, i would say PS3 RAM design is the worst limiting factor in console games this generation

They can't even fix the issueit in exclusives, so multipltfroms would take an even bigger hit

If they were made with 360 in mind could look way better

Actually PS3 holds back 360, with its separted last gen RAM design and the last gen afterthought GPU

obamanian

i always heard rumors that the 360, held back GTAIV on the PS3 graphically as they had to develop for both consoles, than if it was a ps3 exclusive, but idk just a rumor, but no one can really prove what does what better until , a dev builds a multiplat game from the ground up for both consoles, or something like that. im not sure tho cuz im not a techy

i dont think 360 is holding back the PS3, both consoles are really close technically (at least thats my opinion) though i do believe PS3 gets the slight edge in terms of visuals (at least from what exclusives showed)..

PC is superior technically to consoles and always gets the better version same applies to the 360 /PS3 argument, its just that devs have 'less' problems working/porting gameson 360 which ends up getting nearly always (slightly) better multiplats than PS3..

[QUOTE="Shafftehr"]No. Actually, it pushes it forward. Imagine if there was no XBOX to set a graphical standard with multiplats and games like Gears of War... The PS3 would be competing visually against the Wii. And you know how everyone says the PS3 is hard to develop for? Imagine how much excuse PS3 devs would have to slack off developing for it when its only competition in visuals was basically a last gen system. There would be no "Oh, this game looks better on XBOX" for the consumer to say as incentive for PS3 devs to *really* push for better looking games. And fact is, the XBOX has many, many better looking multiplats and some of the best looking console games this gen. If it weren't there as a contrast and competition to the PS3, PS3 devs wouldn't have any need to try and squeeze the most out of the system they could. In short? The XBOX is pushing the PS3 forward, not holding it back.YekDastan316

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

piercetruth34

Article

Not to be a wiseass navyguy, but I've read that article and I probably know more about this stuff than you do. I know you are being a wiseass. AS far as your multiplat argument the 360 and ps3 are drastically different architecture's and if a game is designed using the 360's architecture and then ported to the ps3 the ps3 is going to suffer. It's a very simple concept. I realize the 360 has a superior gpu. It also has 3 cores, but most of the multiplats are not using the spu's to their potential if at all. The multiplat battle is basically just a battle of gpu's hence why the 360 games look better. If games were being developed utilizing the ps3's spu's it's been shown it can do certain things the 360 can't. The same can be said vice versa as well. The 360 hardware is also much better at rendering certain things. Each system has it's strength. The question I was posing was is the ps3's hardware being somewhat untapped because most of these developers or at least the multiplat ones are developing for a standard architecture and most of the graphics are being rendered by the gpu. It was more a question regarding are we seeing the ps3's full potential at this point? I wasn't saying either way. I beileve the 360 is capable of rendering certain things from a graphical perspective the ps3 can't because of the rsx's limited shader architecture. But the cell is also capable of helping although it's limited because of bandwith issues. If you look at gears vs killzone, killzone does certain things and the enviroments are much more realistic looking but they also aren't as detailed in certain areas as gears is.

I wonder if graphical powerhouses like Alan Wake will be ingored on the 360 simply due to it's higer resoltion on the the PC.

Does anyone have any solid proof that the 360 holds back the PS3? All I get are a bunch of mindless fanboys spouting garbage.

"Teh 360 holdz backz teh PS3 cuz games like Killzone 2 are teh graphics king that cants be done on the 360 cuz it maxeded itz hardware while PS3 only uses 1/3 of it's AWESOME CELLZ POWERZZ!!!"

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

Fizzman

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

planbfreak4eva

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

planbfreak4eva

Can I please get a link to that?

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

lets try to use some logic for a second. If the PS3 and 360 are virtually identicle in terms of power, how is one holding the other back?

planbfreak4eva