when I was working on a PS2 it didn't even come with a video codec for developers to use for FMV that synched the sound properly. We had to get a programmer solely to work on video codec and menus. The developer tools and libs were so bad that most developers were using an SDK that was two versions old, this was in 2002/2003, when PS2 had been out for a while already.
I imagine that PS3 isn't much different, only the hardware is even more specialized now. Also what happened regarding the graphics... Originaly the Cell was supposed to be capable of all the rendering and they didn't even partner with Nvidia till after the 360 was released. I guess they saw the 360 and relized the Cel wasn't up to doing graphics as well.
Ati seem to have had the better GPU's at the time that the two consoles were in development, and definately had the best DX support, whilst Nvidia was the only realy choice for proper GL support.
I havent really seen enough games to warrant buying an expensive game machine. Mass Effect is a game I'd love to play, but I just don't see a single game being worth the cost of a console when I can upgrade and do more with my PC. Perhaps in another year the systems will have gotten into their stride and decent games I'm interested in playing will be released for them.
I think MS have the edge because they specialise in software and know how to make good tools, and know whats required to develop software. Sony is a electronics and hardware company and tend to see tools and libs as an afterthought. they even had to hire another developer to get a new compiler for the PS3 only months before it was originaly due for launch. That was one of the reasons for so many delays and almost no games at launch.
I imagine that PS3 isn't much different, only the hardware is even more specialized now. Also what happened regarding the graphics... Originaly the Cell was supposed to be capable of all the rendering and they didn't even partner with Nvidia till after the 360 was released. I guess they saw the 360 and relized the Cel wasn't up to doing graphics as well.
Ati seem to have had the better GPU's at the time that the two consoles were in development, and definately had the best DX support, whilst Nvidia was the only realy choice for proper GL support.
I havent really seen enough games to warrant buying an expensive game machine. Mass Effect is a game I'd love to play, but I just don't see a single game being worth the cost of a console when I can upgrade and do more with my PC. Perhaps in another year the systems will have gotten into their stride and decent games I'm interested in playing will be released for them.
I think MS have the edge because they specialise in software and know how to make good tools, and know whats required to develop software. Sony is a electronics and hardware company and tend to see tools and libs as an afterthought. they even had to hire another developer to get a new compiler for the PS3 only months before it was originaly due for launch. That was one of the reasons for so many delays and almost no games at launch.