That's strange because many developers said that the Cell is not nearly an "optimal console CPU".
Linkies?
It's meant for streaming operations and server tasks. But I guess IBM would be so honest to tell that on their website, right? -.-
Why would IBM, a highly technological and industrial company, misrepresent their new technology as being aimed at a different market to the ones they are currently targeting? If the Cell was great at high end server stuff (which it probably is too, with so much raw power and the ease of increasing it), wouldn't it be that direction that they spin their marketing?
Just look at Assassins Creed: the AI of the XBox 360 version is actually better than the PS3 version.
Linkies to the dev team's comments on that, please?
How can this be if the PS3 is that uberpowerful?
Lack of understanding of multitasking? Or just plum bad coding? I don't see how AI can be affected by a type of CPU, isn't it the code that drives it that's the problem?
Also the nVidia RSX is a weaker GPU compared to the 360s ATI GPU.
That I agree with - ATIs this gen tech is much more exciting than nVidia's this gen tech.
it is your problem if the developers don't make money... cause if they don't, they will stop making the games.
Seems to me that if devvers all took the easy way out and produced mainstream crap with small budgets and small timeframes and no excellence that I'm in exactly the same position anyway.