digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

XBOX 360 vs. Playstation 3 - A Game Developer's Perspective

hardcoreware.net — We all have our favourites, whether it's based on a game franchise or blind brand loyalty. But this senior game developer shares his thoughts on which console is the better buy today. This offers a unique perspective, and the answer may surprize you!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Darksaviour69, on 10/12/2007, -124/+43i'm not a sony PS fanboy (far from it), but i really doubt that was written by a "game developer", it just too bais to wards the xbox 360.

    From what i have read, and heard from game developers, after you weight up the pro's and con's, power wise , they are are about the same.
    • gronne, on 10/12/2007, -9/+75I thought the XNA platform was making development much easier. It would also make sense that the PS3 would be harder because the "cell" platform is so obscure.
    • Microdot, on 10/12/2007, -108/+16what dark said.

      funny he's being dugg down for his opinion, because its not bashing hte ps3. hahaha

      sad sad little people you are.


      and i agree... this is WAY too heavily biased to be taken as real. developing is like programming... and getting to tinker with something new is exciting. right now, everyone is excited about the wii and the ps3.
    • philski, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48maybe, but check out what ID Software (Carmack weighs in on this one) has to say about New Gen development: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=149299&skip=yes
    • Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33I know nothing about game development, but even I can figure out that if you scratch the back's of the people making games for your console... they scratch yours in return with good games, and continued development.
    • laplie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+68XBox and XBox 360 are programmable using Visual Studio (best IDE for windows, period) and DirectX. Programmers are very familiar with DirectX because that's the API they use to make windows games (for the most part).

      People say "XBox is a small PC not a console" because many of the games that come out for it also come out for the pc. But the real reason is that since both use the same APIs, its very easy to port from PC to XBox and vice-versa.

      The "external HD-DVD drive is better" argument is a bit shaky though.
    • soleblazer, on 10/12/2007, -41/+15You are right on the money, also, if this was written by a developer they may have said something a little more technical that the fact that the 3 cpu's on the xbox 360 are easier to program than the 8 on the PS3...no *****!

    • Qenton, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Having once been a game developer, there were things in there makes it so that the writer probably is a game developer.

      I know that developing quickly and efficiently is one of the most important thing for a console. Nothing frustrates programmers more than bad tools. When you have a great development system it is easy to figure out the bugs and get things running.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34From the ID article that philski linked to:

      " This will mark the first time that Id will develop a Wolfenstein away from the PC, but developer John Carmack is keen to put gamers at ease, claiming that "the Xbox 360 is the first console that I've ever worked with that actually has development tools that are better for games than what we've got for the PC."

      I agree that this particular article seems biased, due mostly to the fact that the author glosses over anything uber-technical, most likely because it will go over most of our heads, but there isn't really a way to tell. If EITHER system was genuinely easier to program for and the dev. was being honest, anyone that disagreed would still call it biased. What I find interesting is that I've seen many articles touting the ease with which you can program for 360, but nothing out of the PS3 camp. There was actually a very in-depth article - completely lost me as I'm not a programmer and it was VERY technical - that was on Digg awhile back that came to the same conclusions as this one: while on paper PS3's numbers are higher, the actual architecture and what-not on the 360 make it much easier to program for.

      Anyone have links to articles claiming otherwise, also written by self-proclaimed developers? I'd like to see someone argue the other side.
    • StealthGod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72I'm one of the few developers in the world that can say that they worked on a PS3 launch title. I can honestly back this article and I agree with every statement. I can say that the development tools for the PS3 are better than they were for the PS2. SN Systems is coming out with some good stuff. However, they are still nowhere near as good as the tools for the 360.

      PS3 looks good on paper, but the 360 is just so much easier to make games for. That being said, this was the same story for the PS2 vs XBox.
    • hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -32/+6He says this review is from a game devs perspective. I really doubt it. He just rehashed everything that we have been reading online. Without any sources. I am sorry but just saying that you are a game dev just does not cut it for me.

      But what I know for a fact is that PS3 devkits became available to devs in July and whatever we see currently is thye result of about 5 months of effort, not bad I think.
    • alarion, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31"You are right on the money, also, if this was written by a developer they may have said something a little more technical that the fact that the 3 cpu's on the xbox 360 are easier to program than the 8 on the PS3...no *****!"

      Oh you mean, something like:
      "The XBOX 360 is also far faster to develop for due to better development tools (massively popular Visual Studio .NET vs. proprietary, buggy PS3 compiler and debugger), better documentation, and easier architecture (3 general purpose CPU’s vs. 8 specialized processors that require DMA)."

      or maybe

      "he 360 also has a clever new way rendering high definition anti aliased back buffers. To accomplish the same effect on PS3 is prohibitively expensive. For this reason I think many games will have no choice but to run in non-HD resolutions on the PS3 version, use a lower quality anti aliasing technique, or do back buffer upscaling. The end result in all cases is going to be noticeably worse image quality."
    • oliofactor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@Microdot

      Ahhh... look ok so the fact of the matter is that it seems to me that when you look at the MASS amount of people saying good things about the Wii/XBOX360 significantly out way anyone defending the PS3. And this week G4 Pissed me off because all day long on the PS3 launch day they were praising the PS3 almost solely of teleprompters. They kept saying that "EVERYONE WANTS A PS3!". >NO, not everyone is excited about a PS3.

      I'm beginning to think that the people who like the PS3 are still living with their rich parents and have never had to do an ounce of work to purchase something they want. Me on the other hand i make good money at a real job, and have real world problems to think about.

      so when i look at the PS3 which wont be worth anything for two years (final fantasy 13 [which is the only game out of the many Ive seen that i have any interest for]), or the wii which i don't have to sell my clothes or furniture to buy. The less costly system which is affordable NOW and games which are fun NOW and aren't graphically glitchy NOW, is innovative and intriguing NOW, seems to be a better buy seeing as if i have to use my own money. Seems to me the excitement around the PS3 follows from people buying the system to sell for 3000 dollars on eBay. now that i mention it CRAP i should have gotten one.

    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11Quote from the author:

      "Being a video game developer (I develop for both, Playstation 3 and XBOX 360) people ask me almost daily which platform I think is better. These are my personal feelings, in no way does this reflect my employer."

      But later he says:

      [referring to PS3 online capabilities] "I haven’t seen it yet, but I seriously doubt the quality will be anywhere to the level of XBOX 360."

      How in the world do you develope PS3 games without seeing the online capabilities of the machine?!!?!?
    • g3buz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@laplie: re: the HD-DVD drive. Both my xbox1 and my ps2 optical drives died, leaving the console worthless. The PS2 within a year, the xbox within 2.

      I think his argument that movie playing is unnecessary stress on the optical drive - while something I hadn't really considered - is therefore quite valid. Design your game machines to play games, let other things handle the movie playing.

    • mdshoreboy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Why is "Darksaviour69" being modded way down???? I just do not understand why 360 has to be better than PS3 or vice-versa. Why can't we just own all 3 units so we can play all the exclusive games of each system?!

      I am lucky to own a first gen PS3 and so far it's been a great machine. True Microsoft has always had better development tools than everyone else. That is what made them #1 to begin with. But so what?!

      There aren't that many actual core game engines out there, once they get ported to whatever platform, then its the actual game part that goes on top. Over time they tweak the engines to get more power out of them and enable more for their respective platforms.

      If this guy is going to talk about how much more powerful the 360 is and how weak the PS3 is, what about the Wii? It's the weakest of them all!
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5"The GPU is more powerful. It has more powerful fillrate, and far more pixel and vertex processing horsepower. Part of the reason is their choice of memory, and architecture of pixel and vertex procesing. I can’t get into details but the same vertex shader will run much slower on the PS3 than the XBOX 360."

      I see people believe what they want to believe. But the GPU is more powerful in the PS3. ATI's GPU is can perform better because of USA, which causes the GPU to process less information to achieve the same results. Number wise the RSX is a powerhouse (even more so when in combination with the cell).

      "The XBOX 360 is also far faster to develop for due to better development tools (massively popular Visual Studio .NET vs. proprietary, buggy PS3 compiler and debugger), better documentation, and easier architecture (3 general purpose CPU’s vs. 8 specialized processors that require DMA)."

      I can't believe anything else that he has to say. If anyone else has deved for the PS3 here on digg. Please inform us as to which companies name is on the PS3 compiler and debugger and whether or not it is open to other Cell based operations that the PS3 doesn't have yet.

    • abcdefghiJJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@TubaTechno
      "Sony did not activate the PS3’s online service until just before the Friday debut."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/arts/20game.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

      he is refering to sony's version of xbox live
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.blachford.info/computer/articles/CellProgramming1.html

      http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS5343596548.html
    • davidod87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"This offers a unique perspective, and the answer may surprize you!"

      Not really. I was expecting that the PS3 would be difficult to develop for, just like the PS2, what with its non-generic CPU that's difficult to design for. It'd be easier for everyone if Sony just threw in a Core 2 Quadro, make a loss for the first two years, then make a profit as the price of that CPU drops over the years.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The reason the PS range has always been troublesome to develop on is for the simple fact that Sony want to make games on their platforms as difficult to port to other systems as possible so they don't lose their developers and their exclusives.
      Its really as simple as that!
      MS on the other hand, uses open, tried and proven developmental techniques, apps and tools which make it far easier for game developers to just do their job without needing to bother about badly written tools that need workarounds and re-learning to use properly.
    • GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Almost all multi-platform developers have made the XBOX 360 their primary platform due to timing of release-to-market, this means the games will look and perform better on the 360. The PS3 versions will be ports of the 360 versions. (The opposite was true for XBOX 1 vs. PS2)."

      You know what, I was going to say something here but I have decided that that quote alone speaks volumes.
  • TWEAK, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0Nice one!
  • Diggemz, on 10/12/2007, -31/+3http://www.duggmirror.com
    • Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21It's not even available yet.... Nor is the site even down...

      ???
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1nevermind.......
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -55/+15"In 3 years when your PS3 DVD drive goes out due to playing lots of movies (PS2 was notoriously bad about this) you will have to go buy another PS3."

    Blind fanboy loyalty. This article is crap. By the same argument, when the DVD drive goes out in my 360 due to playing a lot of games (a lot more stressful than playing movies), I have to get a new 360 too.

    Buried as inaccurate, due to pretending to be a neutral analysis, when in reality it is just a 360 fan repeating his reasons (valid and invalid) for backing it.
    • rick2k, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4The thing is... a PS3 isnt a PS2.. nor is it a dvd drive.
    • Topaz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I'm pretty sure movies are actually a lot harder than games on consoles.
    • gregharmon, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12Agreed. That is stupid. They are obviously NOT using the same drive they used for the PS 2s. I have an Xbox 360 and prefer it over the PS 3, however, I'm not retarded and this ***** is biased.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10Agreed - terrible logic. The PS2 drive breaks, so the PS3 one will too? Only true if they were using the same components, which they obviously aren't. The fact is he doesn't know at all what the lifecycle of Blue-Ray drives is-could be better, could be worse. To count it already as a failure is just stupid.
    • dveight, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42He was referring to the fact that with the Xbox 360, you watch HD-movies on one drive and play games on another, whereas with the PS3, you are doing both with the same drive, so it stands to reason that yes, you are putting much more use into the PS3's drive.

      With the PS3, regardless of what how its drive dies (and it will since all drives die eventually), you will be forced to buy a whole new unit, where as with the Xbox 360, you will be replacing either the Xbox console, or just the the HD-player. Hell, if your premium Xbox 360 dies, all you need to do is buy just the core system and transplant the HDD.
    • Lain1k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I think it was more referring to a new technology. When PS2 came out DVD drives were new. They weren't built to last, they were built just to play DVDs. Now over the years they have made DVD players more durable and reliable. Sony is doing the same thing with Blu-ray, a new technology that hasn't been mass produced on this scale. He is making an assumption that it will suffer the same complication that most first gen players suffer. It may and it may not (I'm putting my money on probably will).

      Xbox 360 has the external HD-DVD drive, which is also new. So he is putting the same situation for that to. He thinks its gonna crap out quicker then one that you would buy 2-3 years from now. But he points out that you wont have to buy another console for the drive. When that happens the HD-Players will cost, he estimates, 90-150$, cheaper then 300-500$ (hoping they go down in price) for a new ps3.

      I wouldn't say its bias, I would say from his predictions he thinks Xbox 360 is overall better. Which means if everything turns out the way he thinks it will. Now that isn't always the case.

      But that's what I got from the article.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6Games are harder on drives by far. In a movie, the drive seeks to the start of the movie track and just follows the track for 2 hours. In a game, it seeks back and forth all the time. Also, in a movie, the drive only has to spin at 1X (1.5X on a BD), in a game, it goes to 8X or 12X (2X on the PS3 BD).

      Games will wear out drives FAR faster than movies.

      In reality, this is unlikely to be an issue. If it were, the drives would be external on all consoles.

      Stupid fanboy argument. This article does not bring a fresh perspective at all.
    • sexycommando, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Just wondering, how difficult would it be to replace the Blu-Ray Drive in the PS3 if it craps out? If that's possible, it should be much cheaper than buying a whole new PS3. And for non-techies, I assume Sony would do this for them under warranty? How long is the PS3 warranty anyway?
    • Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"In a game, it seeks back and forth all the time."

      Ever hear of RAM?

      comment buried as inaccurate, uneducated and clearly just a grumpy fanboy.
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Ever hear of RAM?"

      Yeah, consoles never have to load for a new stage.
    • Dalrek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Well, another bonus to the external drive is if Blu-ray does win the format war, MS can just release an external BD drive.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6If the PS3 hard drive dies, you buy a new HD and install it yourself - the PS3 hard drive is user serviceable and simply takes a 2.5" SATA drive.
    • Dog_Paddle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18u5r8ed
  • Oktober, on 10/12/2007, -44/+16Yeah, this is fanboy junk.

    "My friend is a developer" please.

    no digg.
    • socket, on 10/12/2007, -21/+15Did you read it? Most of the article is written by his friend. He knows enough about both systems I'm guessing he's the real deal.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -22/+14@socket:

      Anyone who has seen the specs of both systems could spew out what that guy was saying.
    • gnomon, on 10/12/2007, -22/+8"I can't get into details, but..."
    • socket, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36Yes, but if you read the whole article you would pick up on the fact he speaks like a software engineer. But that would be lost on the average Digg reader.
    • dougm68, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1^
      What the HELL is that suppose to mean?! :@
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"But that would be lost on the average Digg reader."

      Lost doesn't have a Digg reader, what an idiot!
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -14/+46This guy knows what he's talking about. He makes a lot of good points.
    • hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11He does make some very good points. Sony pays for the launch but in the end is like the PS2. It will be exploited later. Tried and true technology makes for a great launch (see Wii) but there's a trade-off, which is lifespan. The Wii has a great launch, easy to create but it's going to fall behind. The Wii isn't going to last for 6 years like the PS2 did. But then again, it's not $600. MS will probably mitigate this by shortened release cycles. Like a 360 version 2 with integrated HD-DVD, digital video out, analog buttons (not just analog shoulders) and making Live free.

      Nintendo has done this with their handhelds. GBA -> GBA SP -> DS -> DS Lite. Wii with DVD later, fast refresh. Sony had the PS2 out in 2000 and they want the PS3 to last 6 years (speculation). So far I haven't been impressed with the PS3 but then I think about the trade-off. It's existing tech versus innovation (and I don't mean Wii's interface design innovation). Sony is paying for taking the leap, the hard question is if it was a smart move. All of a sudden I have my doubts. I find out that the PS3 is running an NV47, I see Motorstorm in person. It looks pretty grim for Sony right now, but that's all.

      I think about how the 360 feels unfinished. The very relied upon Gears of War was fun but I finished it in 3 days for $60? Believe me, it was a really fun ride with the best co-op in a decade. I need to check out the online portion to get my money's worth I think. But somehow I feel like everyone was talking up Gears of War to death and at the end of the day it felt like a shooter for frat-boys. The scene where they talk about dysentery? What? Poop jokes? I loved the underground lava maps, almost worth the price. I guess it comes down to preference. Some people think Gran Turismo is boring compared to PGR3 while other people like the serious subtleties of HL2 compared to Halo2. So do what you like. Maybe you like poop jokes or maybe it exhausts you because it doesn't make you think.

      I'm simply a firm believer that software hates bloat, no matter the brand or space. EA, Oracle, IBM, MS and Sony are all bloated. Nintendo and Apple are small so they can deliver the innovation (not that either Apple or Nintendo have won). Elephants can't mambo. But Nintendo and Apple can't make Media Centers happen like MS can. The little guys can't push a new disc format ... and maybe that's a good thing. So although Sony might seem super stupid to many, I'm keeping my head on my shoulders and thinking about the long-term. Which is the reality anyway since I won't find a PS3 on shelves until 2008. :)
    • dgritsko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I agree - up until very recently, I hadn't even considered getting any of the "next gen" systems (PS3, Wii, or Xbox 360). But honestly, the more I've seen and heard about the 360 the more I like it. The fact that it can be used as a media extender. Xbox Live. Halo 3 coming out next year. A year's worth of development already behind us. HD-DVD addon. And now this article... I don't know if I'll be able to hold out much longer!
  • rokhoppr4, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8Although, it's not available, I think we all have a strong feeling of what the PS3 will offer. Right now, the Xbox 360 has impeccable graphics. I can count the threads of each blade of grass in tiger woods golf. But PS2 currently has better game substance overall. My guess is that all this "research" with Sony went into improving graphics. So my guess is that PS3 will blow Xbox360 out of the water.
    • MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13By the time the developers figure out the tricks to make stellar PS3 games, will the gamers be still patiently waiting?

      I don't believe they will. The 360 isn't tapped yet either... and with the head start it has got, Sony's going to have to wow people sooner, or the gaming public will just ignore it.

      It's happened before... technical superiority has lost out to mass appeal and better penetration. (not saying the PS3 is superior... but you get the point.)

      I've not yet seen the PS3 in action (besides grainy web videos), so I can't say where it will end. Sony hyped the living snot out of the PS2 and under-delivered something awful. :)

      We'll see if it's just Sony's penchant for hyperbole or if they really do have a powerhouse on their hands next year... since this year's simply a wash with the severely limited supply.
  • cozinator, on 10/12/2007, -35/+9It's very difficult to take this article seriously when the writer can't even spell "Wal-Mart" correctly.

    • seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3Oops.
    • seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Most programmors I no cant spell wroth carp.
    • Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23I'm normally a grammar nazi as well, but honestly, the guy's a programmer, not a professional writer.

      Get past the spelling and look at the content.
    • Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Heh, I work desktop support in a game studio. Some programmers' trouble tickets border on heiroglyphics. ;)
    • socket, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It can't be that far off considering both wal-mart.com and walmart.com go to the same place.
    • dougm68, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11spelling is overrated.

      jsut put leertts tgother colse so poplee can unstanerd.

      got it?
    • booc0mtaco, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I take that spelling comment as an insult! Either that, or I'm not just a programmer, but I also happen to possess some form of intelligence as well.

      Concerning this whole debacle of a release, and the ensuing battle...

      It's foolish to make ANY predictions at this point. Many people making comments are either too close to the consoles (biased, exhausted, frustrated developers) or not close enough (fanboys, idiots, nerds).

      Sony is a format company. They constantly get pay from the patents they share or hold on their various formats and technology. The PS3 is bringing a new format to the fore-front. They desire to own the next generation of formats, not necessarily that of gaming. Believe me; they would rather come in second with the PS3, and get royalties on Blu-ray from all the movie studios and device makers of players.

      Microsoft is a software company. Of course you would expect their development tools would be excellent, or at least better than average. They've shown ineptitude in the past, but there are actually some intelligent people at that company; believe it or not.

      And, the wii is a fun toy. It is for entertainment. They aren't trying to get some kind of generalized buy-in for something beyond gaming. No hidden agenda; nothing like Sony and formats or microsoft and software. And that has always been their game; games are what they do.

      So, can the Xbox 360's technology span as long as the PS3? Is the PS3 actually able to weather 5-8 years without a completely new machine? My suspicion is that microsoft will go back to the methods of the console developers in the early 1980s and keep releasing new consoles every 2 or so years. No one else has money to keep up with such an assault.

      Hopefully they won't release too many more systems.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983
  • seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9We have no way to verify whether or not he is an actual game developer. He could be just spitting out the talking points of various blogs and forums. But I would not dismiss this as fanboy junk.

    That said, think about what console you want a year from now. Of course everyone wants a ps3 right now because you can't have one. But a year from now, walk into a store and pick a console. I think a lot of people who are buying it for themselves (as oppose to asking santa, the kids will always want a ps3) will probably be choosing 360's
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Honestly I think it will boil down to what type of games you want to play - the Playstation has historically had a strong showing of high profile RPGs than the XBOX which has historical had a stronger showing of high profile FPS games. For a lot of people this is a major selling point for a console.
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5historically yes, but since Square and their ilk stopped developing for only Sony things are different this time around
    • fatalfury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Xbox had some great RPGs as well (KOTOR, Jade Empire etc.)
    • vdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And then there's Mass Effect for the 360.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26"The answer may surprize you"

    Uh, anyone paying any attention to the whole next-gen console development thing knows most developers (from Carmack & Rein on down) prefer the Xbox360 environment over the PS3-esp. PC developers.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Not surprising considering the original Xbox was a PC, and the current one no doubt follows the Microsoft trend of slathering their APIs across everything whether it makes objective sense or not.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Umm, except it apparently does make sense in this case, because it is easier to develop games for the 360. It is also very easy to port PC games back and forth. I agree with the main point in this article -- games will be developed for the PC and 360 and ported to the PS3, negating any theoretical advantage for the Cell processor.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2On cross-platform games there would seem to be no theoretical difference. But games developed for the PS3 will show a difference.
  • jobeus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Why is this answer surprising? Has no one been reading digg for the past 6 months?
  • ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Hahaaha PS3 IS A SUCK!
  • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5Ohh boy. So, this so-called developer didn't really get into *anything* regarding developing for the platforms! It's all stuff we've heard time and time again. I was expecting to read some technical issues with the platform, perhaps about the IDE's or whatever. Nope, it compared VHS > DVD to DVD > Blu Ray. Yea, good comparison.. (not.)

    The big issue that a lot of folks don't include in these fanboy articles is OtherOS. The PS3 can, right now, be used as an HTPC by installing Fedora Core on it. It's sanctioned by Sony to do it. They won't support you, of course, but you don't need to void warranties with a Mod-Chip to do it. I think this is really excellent. You can have a whole computer system under the TV, as well as kick ass game system and Blu-Ray player all in one small box. What's bad about that? You can't do that on the Xbox 360 or Wii, and you could save yourself a few hundred bucks on a PC under the TV set by going with a PS3.

    • Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26FTA:

      "The XBOX 360 is also far faster to develop for due to better development tools (massively popular Visual Studio .NET vs. proprietary, buggy PS3 compiler and debugger), better documentation, and easier architecture (3 general purpose CPU’s vs. 8 specialized processors that require DMA)."
      So yes, he does talk about developing for the platforms.

      And honestly, as a layperson, I could care less about linux on my PS3. I want it to play games and play movies. Period.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Hogwash. What exactly is buggy or broken about the developing platform? Why is the Cell CPU harder to code for then 3x slow PPC chips? What code doesn't work?

      He didn't talk about developing, he just said ".Net is used already so it's much better." Well, gee, I could told you that. It's easier to use something you already know. However, assuming you're not lazy and willing to learn something new, what is bad about the IDE?

      And it's all good that you don't want an HTPC, but I believe it's a very valid point for Digg as a lot of us here really like that stuff. The fact of the matter is that you absolutely CAN do it, and right now, and it should be mentioned on comparison articles.
    • TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The problem is, for each processor you add to a console, you have to program a program/game/etc to use that processor or it'll be ignored, or not used properly.

      Then you have to load balance the processors properly. I'm not a developer, but I hear it's a pain in the ass to code for SMP and other type of multi-core/processors.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Not really. If you develop your software from the ground up to be multithreaded, it should scale with the number of processors. While Cell is a different type of CPU then a simple Tri-Core PPC configuration, your claim that "if you add a CPU you have to do something to use it" doesn't really apply if your software is scalable in the first place. It'll just be used automatically.
    • Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I see your point about the HTPC being a valid comment to the Digg userbase, so I'll leave that aspect alone for now.

      That said, the problem with programming for the Cell processor is the types of cores and the restrictions on how the memory and cores work. The X360 has 3 general purpose cores and can be coded just as you said: by starting at the beginning with a multicore achitecture.

      The Cell processor, on the other hand, has multiple cores that do specific tasks. I honestly don't know all of the details as to which does what, but the important point is that you must tailor the program to take advatage of each different core separately in different situations. It's not that the Cell can't handle certain tasks, but it is much harder to squeeze power out of the processor due to the immense complexity involved in its coding - and we're talking complex even in terms of multi-core processed cutting edge graphics.

      The article addressed this issue when the author wrote "I suspect a few years down the road some high budget, first party PS3 exclusive titles will come out that really take advantage of the SPU’s and do things the XBOX 360 can’t, but I don’t think the console is worth buying based on this speculation." He doesn't really get into the specifics, but the implications are definitely there.
    • NeoTechni, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"The Cell processor, on the other hand, has multiple cores that do specific tasks. I honestly don't know all of the details as to which does what"

      They do whatever the developers want them to do.

      There is a rumor 1 SPE is devoted to the OS and security features, BUT the facts so far point to that only being true in Linux mode.

      One SPE does have to be used for audio.

      The 2 PPC cores (1 CPU, hyperthreaded), and other 5 (or 6) SPEs are all up to the developers to split up. The developers of Untold Legends claim all 7 SPEs are used in game so I'm pretty sure the OS doesn't take an SPE
    • Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your comments intrigued me, so I thought I'd dig a bit deeper into the situation, starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_3

      In the Cell processor, there is one PPC core that is not hyperthreaded, mostly since hyperthreading is an Intel-trademarked word.

      As you pointed out, one of the SPEs is dedicated to OS Security, and short of rumor, there is no indication that this is only true in Linux mode.

      The problem is that each of these SPEs is a RISC processor which may only access its own local memory, and each SPE only has 256KiB of local storage. These SPEs may access the main memory through DMA, but as the article pointed out, this isn't a necessary step when using the X360's processor, as each of the 360's cores is a general processor with access to the processor's 1MiB of L2 cache.

      The important note here is that SPEs are not exactly the same as your standard processor cores.

      I admit that I was wrong in my earlier comment that each core had a specific task to perform, but that doesn't change the fact that the Xenon processor is more versatile (hence, easier to program for) while the Cell processor may be more powerful when used in a specific way (harder to program for).

    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2While still a discussion of the hardware and not necessarily from a developer's point of view (aka what's good or bad about programming PS3 specifically) this is a more interesting discussion then the blog post, and more technical.

      I pointed this out but got dugg down for it. Oh well. I still think the PS3 will be fun to play with, with it's OtherOS capabilities. I don't really consider it all that expensive, either. It's a full computer system that can run Linux, it's got a Blu-Ray player, it plays games, has neat controllers, and all weighs in at the cost of a low to mid-range PC in an HTPC case without a Blu-Ray player. I think perspective should be in order; while it's kind of expensive just to play games, for me it will be a little more then a game player . Considering that a decent CPU/Memory/Board card and a couple of good SATA disks can almost match the cost of the whole PS3 system, it's really not all that expensive.
  • republikdh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This article may be passed off as fan boy nonsense but I have read countless articles now from both large and small developers who say hands down the XBOX360 is easier to program for than Playstation 3 and as a result this could sway what titles are seen on what systems-
    • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I work with all these systems and from what I hear (I'm in art), the PS3 is much more difficult, as the PS2 was, thats why Renderware middleware was popular, it smooths out development.

      On a personal note, I think ill go 360 for myself at home and wait at least a year before going ps3, if at all.
  • iposthuman, on 10/12/2007, -28/+7If anything I'm a Wii and Apple fanboy and not PS3... This is way too biased. As in some flunkie at M$ probably wrote it. So not worth reading. I read it and now I can't have that time back
    • TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Well, that opinion/comment was bias then, wasn't it? *sighs*
    • aleishman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15The "M$" got you a "down digg", sorry.
  • OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4I am terribly disappointed with my Xbox360. And despite the author claiming there are lots of good games for it, I haven't really found more than one that is even remotely interesting.

    Even though I'm a 360 hater, I think the PS3 was a bad move by Sony. The timing was bad, the features are not focused on what matters the most to game industry. (that is, time to market. developers want to get good games on the shelves fast, they don't want to mess with SPUs). Also being the most expensive game console since the NeoGeo is not scoring it any points with me either.

    The article did get something right though, Xbox live was and continues to be the best online service. I don't like paying for it, so I rarely use it. But what I have used worked well. I just think after paying $300+ for a game console that I could get more than 30 days of online service.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It's about $4.15 per month, completely worth it in my book. And while I agree that there aren't MANY great games, there are a fair amount, although it's a bit disappointing for having been out for an entire year already. My favs at this point are probably Gears of War, Fight Night 3, Burnout, Oblivion (actually a bit too big and overwhelming for me), and Ghost Recon (although the replay value on GR isn't that great, IMO).

      Still, there is definitely more than ONE really good game, unless your taste in games is just ridiculously narrow and you hate ANYTHING outside of that range.

      FWIW, I was planning on buying a PS3 after the initial craze - no way I'm sitting in line for it - but after the mediocre reviews and bad press it's gotten I'm really waiting to see how they handle their online modes. It's great that it's a free system, but you often get what you pay for, so I'm hesitant. Still a good chance of me picking one up, but it's not a lock anymore, as it was 4-6 months ago.
    • MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I actually was skeptical of the 360 at launch, being disappointed by the game selection for the Xbox (I mostly played sports games and the few RPGs that existed on it...) but the 360 has been much better... What a difference a year makes.

      The live arcade is my favorite place to waste a few minutes (to an hour or more...)... I can't believe I'm saying it, but the 360 is a home run. ;) Having been a PS2/Gamecube snob for so long.... I just don't have any interest in the PS3 right now... .but the Wii... again, that retro virtual arcade... it's calling me :)

      We'll see in a year if the PS3 rebounds like the 360 did. :)
    • OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7I don't pay $5/mo for google, and that's a much more valuable service than xbox live. Why do companies have to nickel and dime me? I don't have a land line for the same reason.

      I think the 360 is about where it was a year ago, a few more games. but the games look about the same as before. there is no arguing that the graphics on the 360 is very good. and it has a lot of potential. but I really do hate the system, it's noisey, expensive and the wireless controllers just quit working. (I have two dead ones, won't even work if I plug them)

      despite all that I wouldn't get a PS3.

      (I guess I got dugg down for bashing PS3 and 360, the fan boys from both sides are out to get me now)
    • ToRoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I just renewed my yearly L!ve account for $35.00. (hop on any on-line price finder for a deal, and the code is e-,mailed so no shipping.) so make that $2.92 a month. Racing against the world, from my living room, while bragging about my achievements and sending messages from my PC or the system, along with an invite or chat from any game TO any game is well worth it, even at full price!

      Not having a centralized friends list or way to communicate means you get exactly what you pay for with a PS-3, It s worth NOTHING!
    • rewen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ OrangeTide:
      "the wireless controllers just quit working. (I have two dead ones, won't even work if I plug them)"

      Do you even really have a 360? You can't plug the wireless controllers in, they're always wireless. You can charge and play, but there's no data connection between the console and the controller, just the battery pack and the 5v USB. :|

      Maybe not a lot of people realize this, or you're trying to pull off a fake 'I own one and it sucks, take it from me' gag.

      Or maybe you just can't read instructions and sync your controllers to the machine.
    • wiggimt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry OT, you're getting dugg down by anyone who has seen/played an Xbox 360 ever. You obviously haven't used or even own one because wireless controllers can't be plugged into the machine for connectivity purposes, only for power purposes, so I highly doubt your controllers "just died."

      You also said that Google did much more for you than the Xbox Live service, yet you don't have to pay for it.

      First off, you do pay for it, every site you visit that has an AdSense ad pays Google, hence you are paying Google (with your visual satisfaction, not cash). Second, Google provides no substance in its search engine alone (provided you have 'nifty' things such as Google Earth and awesome things like GMail), they provide not nearly the substance that Xbox Live's marketplace and online community do.

      But I can see where you'd want more than 30 days (IIRC, Xbox handed out 3-month subs like candy when they launched the Live service).
  • wesleyhargrove, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8This is one of the most un-biased articles I have read in the last couple of days on this subject. However, I wouldn't base my consideration on which console to buy SOLELY on this article. There are far more issues between the two consoles. Good read though.
  • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11"the answer may surprize you!"

    Uh, no. It's on digg, therefore I was 99% certain that it would be pro-Xbox360.

    The PS3 *is* more difficult to develop for, but I think the developer is exaggerating

    Disclaimer: I work in the console game industry, but I am not a programmer. I do know that programmers find it more difficult, but not any more than they did the PS2 when it came out.
    • OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4none of the consoles in the past have been easy to develop for either. I suspect PS3 is about average. while the 360 is exceptionally easy to devel for. The PS2, Gamecube, SNES, etc were all pretty average (quirky compilers, difficult APIs, etc) yet people managed to make good games on them any way.
  • JoelTheGeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I've been programming professionally for 6 years now. Some of it was game development (for PalmOS). Crappy IDE's, compilers, debuggers, etc. greatly delay product development and quality. I haven't worked with Codewarrior for PalmOS in years, but when I used it (on Windows) it sucked bad! It was a port from Mac that went poorly. Visual Studio .NET is a mixed blessing itself (2005 for WinForms - blech!).

    While I can't comment on the quality of the PS3 development tools, all I can say is that if rumours of Sony's poor dev. tools quality is true, and XBox 360 is that much better, I'm sure it will be reflected in future development.
  • cRaCKh0rN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I think it is a pointless debate personally. The ps3 has only just come out.
    The proof is in the pudding as they say. In 6 months time when developers are at a better level with the ps3 we will be able to actually compare the games. Then noone will be able to argue.. If 5 games in a row look like crap on one machine compared with the other, it will be far harder for Fanboy 1 to tell Fanboy 2 that his machine is better :)
    • CDHarrisUSF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1... then "they" must be stupid because the phrase is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."
  • ohcoaster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I think many games will have no choice but to run in non-HD resolutions on the PS3 version, use a lower quality anti aliasing technique, or do back buffer upscaling. The end result in all cases is going to be noticeably worse image quality."

    pretty sad if true.
    • NeoTechni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ironically there are 360 games that ran below HD resolutions and were scaled up.
  • MonkeyLives, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Memories! The "Playstation is hard teh program" line.

    That BS worked so well over the past five years for the Xbox when its fanboys kept parroting it.

    Oh wait, no it didn't...Time for Xbox fanboys to try something new?


    • JoelTheGeek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Doesn't matter if it was hard to program or not, as long as there's lots of money in the platform, game development companies (& developers) will persist and put up with the difficulties. As long as that formula holds true, you'll see good titles for a platform (unless it's a total bomb).

      Company might consider like so:
      Yes we'll spend 50% longer on development for the XX platform than the YY, but we'll have 150% more sales for the XX so we still come out ahead.
  • bryants, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Moron. He knows very little about what he's talking about. The Anti-aliasing issue with the 360 back buffers is a huge issue because of the tiling process it uses for HD resolution. This hurts a lot. The PS3 on the other hand doesn't use a tiling method and can do FSAA with less of a performance hit. I'm not even sure he is a console developer! He made zero mention of any projects this applied to. He just made general responses that made him seemed bias.

    But he's right on which is easier to develop for. 360 hands down is easier to develop for. VIsual studio .NET is a godsend.
  • mlock2k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Well how many guys have to tell us this before we believe it. I would imagine from a development side of things the 360 would be better. They have had more time to get used to the hardware. Microsoft opted to pimp out current technologies rather than invent a new one like sony. I really think that has an effect on developers. Obviously something did cause i have seen the launch titles and exclusives change about 15 times in the past 3 months. But over all who cares what ones better. Shouldn't they at least work together to make it so there are a few games that are cross platform so we can finally play together ? Vista and 360 will be ale too soon. Sony should do something like that.
  • cadaver, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I'm not a XBOX fanboy or any other game console for that matter. I think quality and performance should speak for themselves and no one should be loyal. You are paying for a console, wtf are you getting in return to show such loyalty? I also doubt this guy is the real deal, he hasn't even played the PS3 yet...

    "But they had their hands tied just trying to make the PS3 work, it was incredibly ambitious (blu-ray etc.). I haven’t seen it yet, but I seriously doubt the quality will be anywhere to the level of XBOX 360."

    So he is writting a damn review based just on speculation. That is just dumb for a professional developer.

    • rewen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3^ he hasn't seen the ONLINE aspect.
    • Airscape, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1" "But they had their hands tied just trying to make the PS3 work, it was incredibly ambitious (blu-ray etc.). I haven’t seen it yet, but I seriously doubt the quality will be anywhere to the level of XBOX 360."

      So he is writting a damn review based just on speculation. That is just dumb for a professional developer. "

      You took that out of context. Notice that section was titled Live, that statement is about online implementation not the console as a whole.

      **Edit** I really need to press refresh from time to time (1hour) *sigh*
  • KillerX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Good article but still very XBOX 360 fanboy.

    I believe it's still to early to say which is truly the better system, if a year from now developers are saying the same thing , then yes the 360 would be the winner for this round, but it's way to early.

    My 2¢
  • redfive19, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I am actually surprised that anyone would be shocked that any console put out by Sony would be tough to develop for. They've been saying the same ***** about PS2 for years. This is the same proprietary crap that Sony has pushed on us for years. BluRay = BetaMax. However, I honestly think that Sony will come to their senses and somehow come together with HD DVD after some time. Divx anyone?
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Well, Blu-Ray isn't the same as Betamax. It's not only going to be manufactured by Sony. Blu-Ray is a good technology, but I just don't think the current incarnation of it is much better then HD-DVD, and HD-DVD has the advantage of requiring less tooling changes to produce.
  • aacidusX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2uh, the answer didnt surprise me. I dont even own a xbox360, but since I have been reading about many developers leaving ps3 for xbox360 it was obvious.
  • Sartori, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'm currently working on PS3, have worked on PS2, Xbox, PSP, and a little bit of GC and PC.

    I'm not a tech specialist, in programming terms. I write game logic and higher level systems. The majority of programmers on projects I've worked on do the same (the tools and tech guys are often a totally separate team, or a small section of the main team). For me, the platform I'm writing often doesn't matter a bit. All those platforms I've coded for were in Visual Studio, with third party debuggers where needed. Barring a couple of compiler bugs and dodgy pre-release stuff for testing, no platform was significantly easier to develop for *at the gameplay level* where it really makes a difference to how much fun a game is.

    I'm sure the 360 dev environment is good, and MS were a pleasure to deal with in terms of developer support, documentation and so on when I worked on Xbox stuff. But low-level programmers aside there's no essential difference in how you make games on any platform, all the way from PS3 to mobile phones. Team sizes and scope are all that changes.
  • donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Here are a few point/counter points:

    Microsoft wins in the development tools department for sure. But that article was absolutely not written by a "lead developer", but rather a 360 fanboy, as evidenced by his rants on why blu-ray will lose the format war (irrelevant to games development) and the comments about people getting shot at walmart waiting for the PS3.

    He also includes NO DETAIL. A lead developer for any large gaming company would be able to give specific reasons for claims of poor performance. Definitely more than "the 360 has more processing horsepower".

    The PS3 is a better value than the 360 for what you get. The issue is with choice. the PS3 doesn't give you one. Microsoft made a smart move on that one.

    The 360 GPU is a little better than the RSX in PS3, but a better argument supporting the 360 is the fact that when one looks at the distribution of general purpose computation and streaming floating point/ dsp calculations in modern video games, you can see that the 360's 3 general purpose cpus have the advantage.

    Its is undebatable that the ps3 can perform more streaming floating point operations.
    If games were 13% general purpose and 87% floating point, then the cell would trounce the 360. But in most cases they are not. AI, path finding, game logic etc.. are best served on a general purpose cpu as they are mainly integer based and is helped alot by good branch prediction, which the cell's spus don't have.

    PS3 has the edge in vector math. So physics and geometrical transformations (that arent shoved to the gpu) will be a breeze.

    I could go on... but its a never ending cycle.



    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Something worth noting is that in the long run the Blu-Ray might in fact increase the value of the PS3 in the long run. Right now games are starting to push the size constraints of the DVD formant, and I wouldn't be too surprised if in a few years they start to push over that size. This would mean that in a few years you may see "HD-DVD player required" on some of the XBOX games adding an additional $200 to the cost of the console.
    • rewen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0^ @ the guy saying that there could be 'HD DVD required games' - MS has said they will not be using it for games, ever. The drive would lack copy protection capability for games anyway.
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@rewen - Honestly I will be surprised if by the end of the 360's life span there are no games that make use of the HD-DVD drive, and if this is indeed the case than the PS3 has an edge in the total potential storage space department, allowing for higher resolution games.

      Also, one workaround that could be used (for copy protection purposes) would be graphics stored on the HD-DVD drive, and executable code on the DVD drive. A bit cumbersome, but likely to be used if a patch is not possible for executable code off the HD-DVD drive.
    • rewen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0^-
      That would be nice, and I actually do hope they do that, but it's not too likely in my eyes. They won't force people to have to buy the HDDVD to play certain games. They could just span DVDs as they did back in the PS1 days with CDs, I have no problem with that. And besides just the other day I read that a way has been discovered to save textures mathematically instead of as graphics files, saving 90% of the space. This was un-xbox related but seems like it could be applied anywhere.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree, they won't force people to have HD-DVD, and they won't force people to have the hard drive. So in effect, even if you have the best decked out XBox 360, all the games will tailor to the lowest common denominator.

      Every single PS3 out of the gate includes a very high capacity optical drive and a hard drive, and so every single game can be developed from the start to take advantage of these things. The Hard Drive issue really disappointed me on the 360 - the HDD really helped the original Xbox in terms of save game storage, CD Ripping out of the box on every unit, and game data storage and caching. Not having the HDD in many systems means a lot of games won't use it at all - why develop for essentially two different configurations when it's easier just to develop for one?

      I think the Xbox 360 is a fine system, and so is the Wii, and I believe the PS3 will suit me better then the other two. In the end, I will probably end up with multiple systems. Why bother worrying about it?
  • MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Didn't surprise me one bit. Sony is not a development company, where as Microsoft has made themselves from writing software. I would sure hope that a system made by a software company was the better choice for programmers.
  • j3one, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too early to tell really, and allot of this article was pure speculation. That said, I usualy judge a book by its cover when it comes to websites, and that page made me want to run away, but the article was very interesting read and beyond speculation did bring up some interesting perspectives.
  • josegutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The only thing that was driving the PS3 was the Hype. No games on it are worth the 600 bucks that it sold for. The Only good that you can get out of a PS3 right now is selling it on Ebay to clueless imbeciles and turn it into an HD Plasma screen.

    XBOX 360 is still the Best. Gears of War friggin Rrrrrrrrrrrrocks! And we still have Lost Planet, Bio Shock, Halo 3, and HalfLife2 coming out.
  • lockup, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The guy/gal is most likely right when they say that the 360 is way easier to develop for (bearing in mind that Visual Studio.NET is just a proprietary as the PS3 tools) because Microsoft have always looked after their developers. It's one of their strengths.

    That alone won't decide this bout of the console wars. Marketing will have an influence, as will exclusivity on major titles. Arguably the XBOX could have taken on the PS2, but x / [] o, GTA, MGS and Gran Turismo won the day.

    Maybe this time it will be the 360s online goodness that swings it.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I believe the 360 is a better machine than the ps3. I have the ps2 and I like it, but I just ordered the 360 based on interviews, articles and comments on various boards - as well as seeing first hand the two consoles. Someone noted that you will not find too many articles supporting the ps3 as much as the 360. A lot of developers feel its m

    I will also tell you I got tired of Windows XP and moved to a mac. One reason for the 360 is that I could enjoy most of the pc games and not need to do bootcamp.
  • username9000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sony deserves every bit of abuse they get.

    They promised a machine that would be better than anything on the market.

    They did not even come close.

    The xbox 360 may be a year ahead, but that says more about microsoft's ability to plan and bring product to market.

    Sony had the extra time to get this all figured out. They were delayed because of BLURAY laser availability (or so they say), so why does nothing work as well as the 360? They had an extra year to work on the software. The fanboy excuse that you can't compare them because the PS3 just came out is invalid. They not only had all that extra time, they also saw what worked well on the 360...and they still screwed the pooch.

    The other key factor is that everything except first party games will be ports of the xbox 360 version. That means the cell processor is no better than the 360's triple core CPU.

  • 1337jared, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I don't have a 360 or ps3 ( I have both xbox and ps2), but I can obviously tell that this guy is a huge 360 fanboy and not any kind of software developer.

    what a douche
  • radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1You'd think that with all that ease in programming and superior tools xbox 360 would actually have some exclusive titles instead of a library of PC ports.

    Thanks but no thanks. If I want to play PC games, I'll use a PC. If I want exclusive console titles, I use a Wii or a PS3.
    • MikeZila, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dead Rising, Gears of War, Project Gotham 3, Halo 3, etc.

      Talking out of your ass.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Gears of War yes, Halo 3 when did that come out, oh yeah, it'll be for Vista/PC too.

      Face it playstation has dozens of PS only games. Xbox doesn't have the library.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I agree with you. I'd rather play PC games on a PC, where it's comfortable and you have a keyboard and mouse. You simply can't beat the mouse when it comes to accuracy on a FPS, or quickly performing functions on an RTS.

      Too bad you're getting buried. I will too. We can dig tunnels between us and play some PS3 games over an underground network, while all the riff-raff upstairs keeps complaining about ***** that doesn't matter.

  • Sweetness111, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@1337jared

    Yep this guy is a douche alright
  • AnotherUsername, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The article makes a really good point about the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. Sony's drive is in the system so if there are problems with the drive alignment (cough cough PS2) you'll have to replace the whole system. If the HD-DVD has the same problem, you just have to replace the HD drive.

    Since I was burned a few times by the PS2 and drive alignment problems, this is really making me reconsider ever getting a PS3 at it's price.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Wait - doesn't the Xbox 360 include an optical drive inside? It doesn't matter that it's just a DVD drive - if it breaks, you can't use the Xbox 360.
  • Hotrod89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The main point that needs to be considered is "what are the games going to be like?" I'm not a graphics whore and so I'm going to buy the system which I feel will have the best games and that for me is the PS3. They definitely do not have the best games right now, but maybe 1 or 2 years down the line, first party developers are going to be able to maximise the PS3 and make awesome games. If you look back at first generation titles for the PS2 you can see just how much progress had been made for that console in that time. I think the same sort of thing will happen with the PS3.
  • anonymoz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1an opinion from ONE game developer. not sure why this is so relevant. buried.
  • ownage2103, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3This guy is DEFINITELY not a software developer. I promise you he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm sure he got some of his super technical phrases from a software developer (as some earlier comments claim that this was written by the developers "friend", not the developer).

    The Xbox360 and PS3 are very comparable; Neither system has any kind of huge advantage over the other one as far as performance is concerned. He is obviously biased when he says the ps3 is inferior and the xbox360 has a huge advantage in every single category.

    I do not develop for the PS3 or 360, but yes, whichever one has a better software developing kit (more familiar to programmers), will be easier to program for, but this guy goes into performance and blue-ray and other things not even related to the "development" aspect of the systems.
    • csimpkins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's ok everyone, ownage2103 promises us that this guy isn't a game developer.

      Phew.
    • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Best quotes:

      "This guy is DEFINITELY not a software developer. I promise you he has no idea what he's talking about"

      Followed by

      "I do not develop for the PS3 or 360"

  • csimpkins, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41. I hate the word 'fanboys'. It sounds incredibly gay.

    2. With that out of the way, it's funny how all the PS2 fanboys are trying to discredit the author, but not the facts.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What facts? It was an opinion piece.
  • soks86, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Wow, biased, kinda technical.

    He's got it right on the head with info everyone knows (even non-programmers), it is significantly easier to program XBOX360 than PS3. That's that...

    GPU more powerful... humm... being that a CELL processor is normally used for graphics rendering without a dedicated fast GPU for creating the rendered image... poor argument on this guys part.

    He's obviously bias, c'mon, he's talking about the PS3 riots when he's supposed to be talking about programming!

    Past that, visual studio is NOT my cup of tea, arguing that programming for XBOX 360 and Windows is the same is an argument for companies to make more money by paying less... nothing else and with vista coming out PC gaming is going to be having issues.

    Yeah PS3 programming is hard, it's low level, it's dirty. IBM provides a lot of tools to assist CELL programmers and I'm sure Sony has some good ones available as well.

    All the year release issues... wtf.. .this guy is a programmer, what is his place commenting on marketing of a system, I was reading this for technical insight, not biased half-arguments.
  • dan0368, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Oh no, this article doesn't reek of bias at all.
  • clippydiper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The article is hard to read, the facts are spread out, there is no clear distinction between facts and arguments. Usually programming with a lot of "if", "almost" is not a good programming. The author is clearly biased toward XBox and all his proof is shifted toward proving his initial statement. I would like to see a table form comparison of boxes characteristics.
  • 1337jared, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I like how every comment that is discrediting the developer or giving support for counter-points is getting dugg down.

    These comment diggs are unnecessary. People don't use them to judge whether or not a comment is relevant, but rather if they agree with the comment.

    Obviously there are more Microsoft fanboys on digg than there are for Sony.

    The person who wrote this article is obviously not unbiased, which makes me wonder if he is actually a programmer... Why is he talking about High definition output and blue-ray when the article is supposed to be over which one is easier to develop for?
    • gerbilthemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"The person who wrote this article is obviously not unbiased"

      =O Double negative!
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's funny when you think about it. All the love for Microsoft. On Digg. Go figure.

      I don't love or hate any of these corporations. They're ***** corporations. If they make a product I like, I might buy it. If they don't, I won't. Just because I choose one companies' product over another doesn't mean I have to defend my purchase to the death. *****, it's just money. You'll get more, I promise.

  • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I can understand and believe what he's saying. But he's given props to a machine that is now tried and tested. Developers have already been working with it a whole year ahead of PS3.

    If they weren't better at it i'd be a little ashamed. However, he doesn't explain why the 360 is better, and mostly it comes from a programming cost/performance perspective. And most of that stems from the 360's unified memory structure.

    At 700Mhz and 512MB of memory the 360 is an environment that gives the programmer more freedom. Lots of space. On the PS3 memory is spilt 256/256 and there is a big performance hit if you go past your 256MB of main memory.

    If you want to take advantage of the PS3, sony will have to continue to update their tools, and the developers are going to have to innovate, this isn't mom and pops console anymore, if the developers can't put a brain on their shoulders and create, then what are we paying them for. The developer admits himself, the PS3 is more powerful, but it's going to take some really good people to do it. Well, how about we get some good developers then?

    Rather 1 good developer vs 10 medocre ones.
  • Krakn3Dfx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2This guy isn't a commercial developer, this is probably one of the most useless, fanboy biased articles I've read in quite awhile.

    I love my 360, and don't plan to buy a PS3, but come on, this guy hasn't even seen a PS3, what established console development company hasn't had PS3 development gear in-house for a year or more?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.