No.1) You clearly don't look at software sales. Don't act like an analyst.
No.2) You know nuts about game design, so don't act like a developer.
No.3) PS3 isn't hard to code for, it's the process of porting a code over that makes it hard. Get your facts right.

That 3 points pretty much sums everything up that needs to be said about this thread.

Right....

I wonder where were you during the PS2-Xbox-GC days.
I wonder where were you during the NES/Atari 2600 days.

Nothing to say about the ports back then? Just go take a brief look at the ports for the NES and 2600.
Infact there are games that don't even PLAY THE SAME despite the fact they HAVE THE SAME TITLE, SAME RELEASE DATE, and SAME ADVERTS.


Why so many games are poor in comparison to the 360 from the PS3? The engine that's being used.
Anyone with half a brain in the industry knows that 40% of the games out in the market utilizes the Unreal Engine 3. UE3 sucks bawls on the PS3, like it or not. Blame EPIC for creating a shitty ass engine that is hard to get working on the PS3.

Even Mark Rein himself admitted their engine wasn't properly built to begin with if used on the PS3. They are going through alot of improvements and optimization to bring that gap close for games using UE3.

Developers too lazy? While no doubt there definitely is a few which are just pure lazy. But you have no idea just how much work they put into a game. People like you take things for granted and do not know what has went down in the process of development for a game. Naive, pampered, kid you are.

The reason I point that PS3 isn't hard to code for is because, I haven't heard or seen a single first party or second party developer complaining.

Probably "hard" isn't the word here... but yes, there are various engines which utilizes unified shader models (Source and UE3) that runs like crap on the PS3's RSX. Thus I said, hard to port the code over. Games which are made on these engines aren't done on the PS3, they're either done on the PC primarily or on the PC. Now we all know how close of an arichitecture both the 360 and PC shares.

I hope you ain't calling me a loser.

Comparison wise man.
If first-party and second-party devs can do it, I don't see why third-parties can't.

Okay, sure... first and second parties are pretty much more or less exclusive (besides FFXIII ). You may say that they have way more time to concentrate on one console, exploiting its strenghts and covering its weaknesses. You may also say, Sony gives more support to first and second-party devs too.

But if you look back at history, wasn't the PS1 and PS2 hard to develop for?
The PS2 was actually, infact harder to develop for than the PS3. By miles actually... atleast PS3 has support for the general C++ language. PS2 uses proprietary languages by Sony themselves. You freaking need 10 textbooks beside you when programming something on it.

Yes.... PS3 is way more expensive to develop for. Considering the install base isn't as large as the 360, revenue for the games are also harder to gain. Very very true. Blame Sony for the high price of the PS3, they still don't want to drop it.



Konami is a third-party dev. MGS4 is a third-party game. MGS4 isn't multi-platform.... yet, or if it ever will be.
Second party devs are games published by Sony, not developed. Games like these are Uncharted, Killzone 2, Heavenly Sword, R&C, inFamous and most importantly, Gran Turismo itself.

Yea, smaller budget teams really has not much of a standing in this generation's of development costs.
It's just way too high, unlike the SNES days.... where even a high-school kid could come up with a game and release it for sale.

In Japan, there are actually thousands of unknown 3-man team PS2 developers running all over.
They're so good at developing on the PS2 that they can still make a living out of it just selling in one street of Tokyo.
Gosh, talk about commitment.


There are various other multi-platform games that has the edge on the PS3 too.
Example, Tomb Raider Underworld has way better shadows, correct contrast, no screen tearing and a solid framerates.

But the majority is that multi-platform games just performs better on the 360.
We have reached a point where unless you place 2 games side-by-side, you won't see a difference.
Of course save for except the recent fiasco of Ghostbusters, F'ing up so badly on the PS3 despite the ironic developer's claims. They're eating their own words now.

Yea and they got destroyed before we GC even made it's illegal ways here in Malaysia.
By the time we knew it, 360 was already on the horizon.

No one knows that the X stands for in the Xbox name?
It stands for DirectX, proprietary API programming design by Windows.

Really though, it's MS own fault in leading people to think that 360 = PC. They're doing stupid things like Games for Windows Live, and we all know how bad it did. Then now they're taking Silverlight to the 360. None of this BS calling 360 = PC was ever said when it launched 3 years ago.

PS3 struggling so much? How so? It trails the 360 by less than 8 million sold worldwide thus far, and that gap is rapidly coming down. The 360 is only selling better in the US, the other parts of the world... it's PS3 selling better.

Yes US is the largest market, but by saying struggling so much? That's oversaying.

Righttt.....

look at the PSPGo.

I wonder why no one said anything about PS1 games being a rip-off then.....