News Tretton: Developers creating on PS3 first

It isn't the lead console for development. Every game that is multi-platform is either made first on 360 then ported to PS3, or made at the same time for both, only now developers are starting earlier for the PS3 because it is a crap platform for development and it takes much longer to make good games on versus the 360. I own both systems and I cannot tell you how many cross platform games have either been delayed for the PS3 or had a crappy port. The PS3 from a development and business standpoint is utter crap, and if Sony didn't have good first party developers, and Japanese loyalty, the system would be a total failure. Also Jack Tretton is so full of **** his eyes are brown.

 

i really would like to know more about this anti virus that PS3 users have to have so their systems dont crash. lol

whoever made that up must have found a new drug. wow......

maybe theyre talking about the internet content filter by Trend Micro which just blocks sites kids arent supposed to see?

maybe run into a wall. your brain may get back into place.

 

I often wonder what planet the Sony HQ is on, because they seem to have a somewhat different view of things to the rest of us.

I guess they have to say these things to keep the PR people happy, but honestly, they are starting to sound like the Iraqi information minister at times.



"Don't fear, we are out-selling the Wii 3 to 1!!! Every new game will be on PS3 first!!! consumers don't want backwards compatibility!!!"

 

When did they say that? Secondly, with the (IMO overhyped, marketing-friendly) Wii being $250 and the ("poorly selling, there's no games for it" PS3 being $400-$500 and yet selling 1 unit for every 3 Wii's is actually a compliment IMO. Just wait a couple months when games finally start coming to the console. It's the same w/ 360 being able to sell almost 1 unit for every 2-3 Wii's...not bad....

First off, never take a statement from a CEO to be 100%, we all know that...and secondly he didn't say "every developer"...so stop filling in words that weren't there....

Not everyone owns/owned a PS2 (myself), and with people complaining about price all the time, now they have a choice to make.....I, myself, would buy a PS3 for NEW games.....if I really felt like I needed to play PS2 games then I would either A) find a used 60GB or B) be patient and get a 80GB at the next pricedrop or C) would find a cheap, used PS2 for around $30 on craiglslist or ebay.

 

i am not bashing any console here but i can say that i will take what this guy is saying with a sack of salt....

 

Meh...I bought a PS3 recently and I honestly couldn't be happier with it. Granted, I live in the states, so backwards compatibility is there, fully working and quite nice. The BR player is a nice bonus, but I'll tell you what - the hard drive standard was the determining factor. As game sizes increase, so does loading (i.e. mass effect).

Tretton is of course spinning - he's a CEO. If it were any other company we'd be no more surprised. But he very well may be on to something - not because of Cell or because of the beastly power of the PS3, but because of storage ability. To know EVERY user has at LEAST 20GB of HDD space to work with - it really does make games "move" better to be able to count on that cache space, it allows devs to be able to design mods as there's someplace to store them... it was a forward thinking move and I think that by and large, aside from maybe Penny Arcade, most people in the games press haven't quite "got it" yet - the benefits will be more apparent as titles get more graphically or worldly detailed and caching becomes more important.

Developers ARE starting to use that more (UT3 for example), and I think that in that particular light, the games WILL have to be "dumbed down" to consoles that don't have the ability to count on an HDD. That, or you'll start seeing XB360 games that say "HDD required," which MS won't be too happy about due to all the systems it sold without an HDD - it'll look like its not supporting its own products.

Now, let the flaming commence - a person in the media CHOSE to buy a PS3.
</grabs armor and shield to protect from the pitchforks>

 

What's telling though is that practically EVERYONE at TrustedReviews and Bit-tech tried to talk you out of it.

 

ouch I somehow started the flamewar, I own all the consoles and I just think sony is the only one who got their online network "right" although the wii also has a nice online network, but to be honest I have never tried it. The big difference being the ps3 and xbox network are almost identical but the ps3 manages to do it for free. There's really no excuse for a pay to play network. I understand pay to play gaming like WoW, but I don't see the justification in making users pay to use the network. Do the math over the course of the consoles lifetime the an xboxlive account will exceed the price difference between a ps3 and xbox