[What?]

Um... I've never heard that before and it would be ridiculous to come out and say your system was created with the intent to make it as difficult as possible to make games for and then expect people to go and make games for it... that's corporate suicide.

I'm talking about graphical limits and not how hard it is to program something. If Sony actually thought it was a better idea to make a powerful system that was hard to program for an effort to limit graphical capabilities instead of simply making something easy to program for but having a lower graphical output, I am speechless. It makes absolutely no financial sense to create a system, put expensive top of the line components in every single unit sold which made them lose money per sale and make the system hard to program for so only a select few people could reach it's potential, intentionally. That does nothing but make the situation of more money meaning better graphics even more apparent and true. If that's true Sony wasn't just unfortunate by losing so much money with terrible planning, but they wanted to lose money no matter what. I'm finding that a bit hard to believe, as in, there's no fucking way a machine like that would ever be approved for production. Learn the difference between a side effect of the system being difficult to program for, which was lowered graphics capability, and designing a system to limit people like that while still paying for the parts needed that only 10% of devs could utilise when they could have simply put in lower spec parts.

The Xbox 360 was out for a year before the PS3. The PS3 decided to create, in theory, a more powerful machine, advertise it as such but then wanted to limit it's graphics to 360 level but also still paying for the better graphics inside the box? Which cost them money for every single PS3 sold. I don't care if the PS3 is hard to program for, it is. But you're saying they decided to put in expensive components into their machine and then tried to intentionally limit developers in an effort to lower game development costs, but has no effect other than to make it even worse?

My head hurts, thanks a lot.

Christ I'm saying even 360 levels were too high so what does it matter, the PS3 didn't go below that. And the only reason PS3 games looked like 360 games was because it took less effort and was better financially to create two identical looking games instead of trying to spend more budget making the PS3 version look better for no reason. Why are you wasting my time with useless banter.

This post has been edited by What?: 03 October 2010 - 01:58 PM

[Vigilous]

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years? So it's a kind of--I wouldn't say a double-edged sword--but it's hard to program for, and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."

That's from Kaz Hirai himself. The reason I brought this up is because you're crotch stain that said:

Quote

It would be very easy for graphics to stop mattering so much and allow smaller developers to make big hits instead of just the ones with the most money. Limiting what people can do on consoles is important, let's hope nobody fucks it up next time and actually tries to make a profit for once instead of just bleeding the industry dry.

This post has been edited by Vigilous: 03 October 2010 - 02:06 PM

[What?]

Kaz is an idiot, if that wasn't already obvious. I knew about that, but you went on saying that they were trying to keep the console limited when it does nothing but require more effort i.e. money to get the most out of the system. That is not a limited system and does the complete opposite of making it approachable to smaller devs with less budget. So I don't know what you're trying to say, the PS3 isn't limited. It's just stupidly designed. A limit implies it cannot exceed a certain threshold. The PS3 doesn't adhere to that and makes the situation worse at the same time, more money than what's supposed to be needed to get a small increase in performance.

This post has been edited by What?: 03 October 2010 - 02:17 PM

[Corrderio]

Quote

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years? So it's a kind of--I wouldn't say a double-edged sword--but it's hard to program for, and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."

This has got to be one of the most retarded things I've heard in my life.

[Velhart]

Since when do people take Kaz Hirai seriously?

[Vigilous]

Typically, they don't. But considering that every developer that isn't SE has claimed how bad it is developing for the PS3, it sounds like he might actually be telling the truth.