Game Devs too Lazy

[Shayannike.ps3]

Why wouldn't any of the multiplatform devs take the time and use the cell processors on ps3 to their advantage (and I'm excluding Naughty Dog from this). Because Watch dogs was been developed from 2009-2014 nearly 5 years to work on it and yet its shit. They coud have at least try to develop it on ps3 and use its hardware to their advantage, as the CPU can take away strain on the GPU since it has dedicated graphics, its more powerful than the xbox 360 and naughty dogs has proved it, with their previously released games the uncharted and the last of us. Why ubisoft Why??????

[eLucid]

Ubisoft sucks, period. Stop purchasing their products if you're unhappy.

[Clyne]

It's ubisoft, what did you except?

They just keep on digging.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15487736056_6a57eb4425.jpg

I'd seen you ranting about ubisoft and watch dogs.

[-TesseracT-]

Why wouldn't any of the multiplatform devs take the time and use the cell processors on ps3 to their advantage (and I'm excluding Naughty Dog from this). Because Watch dogs was been developed from 2009-2014 nearly 5 years to work on it and yet its shit. They coud have at least try to develop it on ps3 and use its hardware to their advantage, as the CPU can take away strain on the GPU since it has dedicated graphics, its more powerful than the xbox 360 and naughty dogs has proved it, with their previously released games the uncharted and the last of us. Why ubisoft Why??????

Because the PS3 is a bitch and irrelevant.

[Dudenstein]

From what I remember the cell was horrible to develop for and caused developers a lot of issues because of its odd architecture

[ivhyn]

From what I remember the cell was horrible to develop for and caused developers a lot of issues because of its odd architecture

At the beginning, yes.

But it was very powerful for computing tasks.

[Guest]

Not to mention that while the CPU for the PS3 was quite powerful, the GPU was not very good at all and only a very few select things could really be offloaded to the CPU. The disparity mostly disappeared by the end of the generation but I don't think the PS3 ever had anything that really stood out as being way better than what was possible on the 360 but had a lot of things that were marginally worse. 

[Dudenstein]

At the beginning, yes.

But it was very powerful for computing tasks.

But when developing for multi platform games they aren't going to go out of their way to take advantage of an off fevered architecture. That's why the best looking things on the ps3 were their first pay titles because they were programmed from the ground up for the cell architecture and its intricacies. Developing for cell and non cell in parallel would be a waste of resources when only a third or so of the overall consumers would reap the benefit.

[connorpiper]

Not to mention that while the CPU for the PS3 was quite powerful, the GPU was not very good at all and only a very few select things could really be offloaded to the CPU. The disparity mostly disappeared by the end of the generation but I don't think the PS3 ever had anything that really stood out as being way better than what was possible on the 360 but had a lot of things that were marginally worse. 

 

The PS3 had Journey.

 

 

That defiantly used all of the PS3s power.