Activision CEO: PlayStation 3 most advanced, devs not taking advantage of it |
Ó
This might actually go hand-in-hand with Jack Tretton's statement about the PlayStation 3 "sacrificing the short-term challenges for long-term wins." In the recent Web 2.0 Summit, Activision CEO and chairman Robert Kotick gave his thoughts about Sony's gaming console and how some developers might be treating it.Replying to an audience member, Robert Kotick noted that the PS3 is the most advanced gaming platform out there today. And reflecting Tretton's remark of how developers might be having a hard time working with the system (for the short-term, at least), Kotick continues, saying that "few game developers were building products that take full advantage of the console's powerful, multicore processor, [but devs' knowledge of the system could change within] the next four or five years."
So does an Activision CEO have the clout to say this? Well, it's up to you. If you're one to take a company's games library as credentials, do know that Activision has Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock up its sleeve. Both games are to be released across different platforms, and its only upon release will we find out if the devs took advantage of the PS3's system. Only time will tell, but Kotick still raises some interesting arguments.
41 Jumps PSP homebrew - PSP live TV v0.3
22 Jumps PSP homebrew - PSP Live TV v0.4
17 Jumps Buy two, get one free at Best Buy
10 Jumps PSP homebrew - QMixer v1.0
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
Maybe some people agree with me and want BC. In the US , I plan on buying my second ps3 for the kids, I'll have to hurry before the 60 gig units are gone. I think those are the ones that have 100% BC.
I woudn't pay 500$ to play PS2 games that's for sure :S, instead, buy a ps2, then play ps2 games till the ps3 cost less, than buy the ps3 and you just saved money!
Anyway, it's good the know that the 60g will FINALLY stop being into retailers! lol
Ha, that's when the ps3 will actually start to get good games. No reason to buy a ps3 now! LOL!
like i told you in the other artical f**k off.all you you do is post dumb stuff about ps3 in all the articles, now f**k off and get a life and move out of your mums basement
what about RESCALLING FOR HDTV? ps2 on hdtv sucks like reall bullcrap
Even more for us in the UK. Our cheapest one converts to about $600, and thats the new, 40 gig version.
For that amount of money it should definetly be offering a least what its competitors are offering, and a lot more. Backwards compatibility is something everyone has come to expect, and whatever you think, for now at least, it definetly needs it because so far it doesn't have ANY ground breaking games out.
Call me a fanboy, or whatever you want for saying that, but I've always had every console, because I don't want to miss any game. They've all had roughly the same play time, I've never been more inclined to any certain one. I'm not a fanboy. But the PS3 is the first console I havent even thought about getting within the year of launch so far, because it's not got anything coming up that I really want. Sure it can change, but you get the point. It's not amazing people yet with PS3 games, so it at least needs the huge back catalogue of PS2 games to fall back on. Every time I see something about the PS3 on this site, it always makes me think I'm just never going to get around to getting one, because they always seem to be shooting themselves in the foot as much as Nintendo did with friend codes. Sony seem to have some sort of fetish though because they keep doing it.
Hopefully all that extra tech should start to show soon though, but through more than graphics. As nice as the pretty stuff is, I want thousands of enemies on screen at once. Unnecessarily complicated physics systems. Everything to be completely interactive, nothing just being a part of the terrain, and the terrain itself not just being static. This is the sort of stuff the PS3 should be doing. Pushing gaming forward with,, like the article says, it's just not happening though which is why people get annoyed when stuff like BC is taken away.
All of this technology, but I don't see them doing anything with it. It would sure be nice to see devs actually spending some time using the PS3 technology to make a game that's really worth playing. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PS3 owner myself. But so far, I don't see any difference in graphics or gameplay in the games that are multiplatform between PS3 and the Xbox360. Hopefully they did add some extra stuff in CoD4+Guitar Hero III.
Just my two cents.
then metal gear, final fantasy, GT, Haze, Killzone, tekken are deleyed to five years? I'm gonna cry :(
two of my most awaited games for next year other than those you mentioned Someone_PR... Little Big Planet and White Knight Story.
"As nice as the pretty stuff is, I want thousands of enemies on screen at once. Unnecessarily complicated physics systems. Everything to be completely interactive, nothing just being a part of the terrain, and the terrain itself not just being static."
You obviously have not played LAIR or Heavenly Sword. Those games are fantastic with hundreds if not thousands of enemies attacking you at one time. Lair lets you interact with almost anything, you can fight dragons realistically in the air at thousands of feet above the ground or swoop down and either grab an enemy that is battling it out in a huge war or land on the ground and wreak havoc. Heavenly Sword is similar in a lot of ways. Give it a chance and you will see the potential of Playstation 3.
xeroxx, you need to xeroxx yourself a new brain cause if you dont see the difference in ps3 games being better than dead box 360 your just lying or you are playing a super nintendo and mistaking it for a ps3. ps3 exclusive titles have been way better, ground breaking and prettier than anything offered on the dead box 360. lair is such an awesome game that was missed by a lot of people because of old people reviewing such a technically advanced game. lair sometime have 3000 dudes on screen at the same time while still managing 1080p graphics and looks ***** pretty keeping a good frame rate at the same time.
if you had a ps3 you would know what an awesome game motor storm is. heavenly sword is such an awesome game and has been one of the best game ive played in a long time. it had an awesome storyline, wicked gameplay and beautiful graphics which is way prettier than anything seen on an xbox 360.
listen, if you dont live under a bridge you should know about killzone 2 which will be the best fps since golden eye 007 on n64. throughout the years, most fps has been doing the same things with nice graphics. killzone 2 is doing different things and is the best looking game on a console since forever. there will never be a game for xbox 360 using as many poligons on screen as killzone 2 on the ps3. i have gears of war for the xbox 360 which looks good but sveral ps3 games beat it in the graphics department a long time ago.
halo 3, the flagship title for the dead box 360 was suppose to beat out gears of war in graphics but couldnt do it cause the xbox 360s hardware is so limited it cant do beautiful graphics with wide open environments. gears of war which a lot of people played was very short, it used 96 % of the xbox 360s power (quote by the devs). and gears was clausterphoebic . PS3 IS THE FUTURE AND THE FUTURE IS PS3. xbox live gamer tag - dylantalon. psn id - dylantalon.
@walker3243
then stop stalking me, you pervert.
i feel sad for you, having to type all of that up just to get your little fanboy comment out. halo was supposed to beat gears graphically? stop eating the sh*t sony is feeding you. maybe if sony let you off your leash every once in a while you could see the light but your stuck sucking sony's d*ck
what ever article i choose to read you have some dumb comment there
at least he doesnt just post "ps3 is *****" and then f**l off
nllx, you're an idiot. i own all systems but have a dislike for something that broke 4 times. i simply stated facts, i have a wii which the code is 6427 6702 6382 8143 f>kc the wii im hardcore and its inferior to the other console. i have been through 5 xbox 360 and still has 3 at home broken, my xbox live gamer tag is dylantalon. i buy my things and since its mine, i can talk about it and not be a silly fanboy for a console cause i own them all.
xbox live is laggy a lot of times and if you have xbox live you will know that. forza 2, gears of war and lost planet which are the only games i think worth playing on the system is laggy. i pay 50 dollars a year for a laggy service and if i hear 1 more person talk about how live is better than psn, thats one ignorant fool. main thing of having online is for playing with other people and socialize if you want, not watch f@(king family guy or seeing advertisement all the time. its what live is meant to do is playing against other people or with them but live is beaten by ps3 or psn in that department. the online games for ps3 has way more people in a match, wide open environments and no lag while still being pretty. resistance has like 40 people in one map with no lag, never seen on xbox 360 and will never be done on it.
a lot of people love to hate something they done know about at all, thats ignorance, i critique the things i have talking about what i dont like. i hate that evertime i turn on the xbox 360 i dont see the red ring of death. i also still am worried when im playing thinking ill have a disc error and the system freezes like its in a fight with sub-zero. xbox 360 will not win the next gen war cause of hardware failures and system limitation.
as time goes on, games should look better than previous titles on that system but due to hardware limitation in xbox 360, halo 3 looks like halo 2 and none of them are hd. all of what im saying are words from professional developers in the gaming industry. halo 3 native resolution is in 640p, thats been confirmed by even bungie. no game on the xbox 360 runs native at 1080p at 60fps. there are only 2 games on the xbox 360 that runs 1080p natively. most games on the xbox 360 are just upscaled to 1080p. without hdmi you cant get true 1080p hd and some might be quivk to say xbox 360 has hdmi compatible system but im sorry to inform them that its hdmi 1.2 which is still not as good as hdmi on ps3 where the hdmi system is 1.3.
ps3 seems to killzOWN everything about the xbox 360.
cell chip (broadband) >ati
blu ray >dvd 9 and hd dvd
7 spu in ps3 > 3 in xbox 360
psn > xbl
touch sense rumble ps3 > 2 side rumble in xbox 360
gears of war > halo 3
gt 5 demo > forza 2
gt 5 prologue > forza 2, pgr 4
killzone 2 > everything on xbox 360.
in conclusion, i dislike broken systems over working ones. i like superior systems over inferior ones. cause im not a fanboy im able to see pros and cons about all systems. only cons ive seen about ps3 was that it didnt have much games but now, there are a lot, ohh yeah, another con was the system useto cost 600 dollars. have a nice day.
nllx has been proving how idiotic he is since forever...
nobody pays attention to this kid anymore and besides he gets pwned most of the time anyway and is not smart enough to make any sensible come backs...
don't feed the troll dylan... just let him be... the entire QJ community (yes even the XBox fans who has said a lot of times already that he's an embarrassment to the xbox tribe) knows nllx is just a fart who likes to pass by once in a while.
you have unicorns in your dream world dont you fantard
are u the reincarnated Axomoxoa?
"but live is beaten by ps3 or psn in that department. the online games for ps3 has way more people in a match, wide open environments and no lag while still being pretty. resistance has like 40 people in one map with no lag, never seen on xbox 360 and will never be done on it. "
With my 1 mth free subscriptn experience with Halo 3 (16 player max only?) it DOES lag more EVEN with wired ethanet connectn....?
RFoM WiFi beats that even with 30 - 40 plyers
period
You pPS3 people are stupid open your eyes sony keeps say that someday the ps3 will be better than the 360 it been like a year and it still sucks and if it ever becomes good i have one
A year after the Xbox360 was released it too sucked but 2 years on it has produced some damn good looking games, give the PS3 another year and it too should produce equally damn good looking games...roll on, this time 2008 and we'll see what's good about the ps3 in comparison to all other platforms!
which is why I can't wait to buy one in 2008, around this time next year. Not being a smart ass, just saying that if it grows like I hope, then your right, if not, I'm not out anything.
Why do topics like this always seem to attract the fanboy Neanderthals of all sides? With their biased l-o-n-g posts full of false information, exaggerations, deluded beliefs and opinionated nonsense.
Ho hum. :)
who the hell is that? i've been here forever.
"agreed xbox live IS laggy"
That's not a fact.
There's a difference between Resistance online and Halo 3 online. Look at what both games are offering beyond simply the number of players online and lag... such as dedicated servers, user-hosted games, region restrictions, game modes etc.
From my understanding, Resistance online is region restricted to reduce lag, hence you connect to the closest server to your location. That together with dedicated servers means you can have up to 40 players with little or any lag, but you pay for this by being restrictioned to gamers within a certain region (hence gamers in the US can't play against gamers in the UK, Japan etc).
Without region restrictions (i.e. open to gamers worldwide), you are likely to experience more lag depending on the distance from the host server, either yourself, or a few other players within the game. In addition, if you connect to someone hosting a game on their console, then you're also going to be effected by their location and their bandwidth.
Therefore you gain in some areas at the expense of others, and so you shouldn't assume online performance in games like Resistance and Halo 3 is representative of the performance of PSN and XBL as a whole, because it's actually a reflection of the choices made by the developers for the game.
RFoM had an update that lets us Brits play against the Yanks and Japs. Still not laggy.
Like I said, there's a difference.
It's good Resistance has been updated to remove the region restrictions, however lag will be present if you connect to a server in another continent compared to connecting to a local server. The distance is greater, resulting in the signal taking longer to get to the server and longer to get back to you. This is unavoidable, whether you're playing on a PC or on a console.
Fortunately, most online games give you an indicator which shows you how good your ping time is to the server, allowing you to choose the servers with the better ping times and avoiding those with the worse (which WILL lag regardless of the game). Is this true for Resistance now that the restrictions have been lifted? (I'm asking because I don't have a PS3 or the game).
That's the point I'm making. Effects of distance on the internet on ping time exists regardless of the game, PC or console, and a game being hosted by a gamer at home will be effected by that user's bandwidth (BTW, can you host a game of Resistance on your PS3 and control who connects to your console?).
...that "xbox live IS laggy".
Since you may find Halo 3 to be more laggy for you than Resistance (for the reasons I've given), that's not a reflection of XBox live vs PSN. It's down to the game and the choices the devs made (each with pros and cons).
A simple indiction of this is for multi-format games online on the 360 and PS3. The online performance is no different! Gamers on XBL are not finding the games any more or less laggy online than the same game on the PS3. If there are online performance issues, it's usually a bug which is sorted out soon after launch (for either console).
The reason it's no different is because the design for the online component is exactly the same between the games, whether it's dedicated servers and their distribution worldwide, user hosted games, number of players, etc.
These are the factors which mostly effect online performance, not whether a game is on PSN or XBL.