Yeah but it's not the same as the RAM in your Computer. While physically it's the same, it doesnt have to be bloated with an OS.
Red Alert 3 for PS3 - Cancelled - For Now
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
Yeah but it's not the same as the RAM in your Computer. While physically it's the same, it doesnt have to be bloated with an OS.
It's also much faster ram than you will find in a PC (well, i know the PS3 ram is, and i assume the 360 ram must be too). You also need to consider, when these companies made the specs for their systems, ram was much more expensive than it was now. In fact, ram has been showing record price drops over the past year. I'm sure now Sony + Microsoft are kicking themselves a little bit for not taking a chance and forking out for extra ram early on to take advantage of the insanely low prices we have today.
I remember when ram was £1 per megabyte, sigh, i'm old.
I remember when ram was £1 per megabyte, sigh, i'm old.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 9,682
- Location
- On the pale blue dot
I may be talking out my backside here as I'm not a games developer, but I was under the impression that code for 360 games is much easier to port to the PC and vice versa, thus the cost to bring it to the other format is much reduced. With the PS3 being harder to port to, they may have just decided it wasn't worth the investment based on how well they thought they could sell RA3 to PS3 players.
They would still be limited by the GPU though, ram can only do so much.
Though it would be nice for games like GTA to remember where you left your car, no matter where it was in the city, which I believe would be a benefit of having more ram.
Well... you aren't talking out of your backside at all, what you say is true but it is also slightly more complicated than that. Basically, when coding games for multiple cores, it has to be coded with threads that can equally be split between each core resulting in a similar load for each in turn. For the 360 and PC they have a very similar number and type of cores, so once you've sorted out your threads that's the hard bit over and done with. In the case of the PS3 however, it has a huge number of less powerful cores, while this is fantastic for programs with the capability of splitting loads of threads evenly amongst each core (folding @ home being a reasonable example, though the PS3s high performance there is even more complicated to explain), when trying to run a few large threads it results in a large portion of the CPU remaining unused and thus poor performance.
If a game is coded for the PS3 FIRST, the game is then very easy to port over to other systems. This is because the programme will have been coded with lots of evenly demanding small processing threads for each of the cells SPUs. A single powerful core like those in the 360 and PC can handle multiple small threads each and so all that needs to be done is to distribute them amongst the fewer, larger cores. Bascially splitting large threads is hard, but consolidating many small threads is easy.
Not sure if that's all fact, but its what my very limited understanding is of the situation. Clearly red alert 3 wasn't coded for the ps3 and ported across, my money is on it being coded for the PC as it is still the biggest platform for the RTS market.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Any1 think MS has a hand in this. A bit like NV have been recently with Assassins creed and vanatage?
Have games like c&c 3 and supreme commander sold well on the 360?
Have games like c&c 3 and supreme commander sold well on the 360?
Its an RTS, original programming is always going to be done with PC in mind, 360 is the closest thing to a PC so its a natural progression.
Re-dev'ing for the PS3 might be seen as a waste of resources, depending on how much time it would take to achieve.
Re-dev'ing for the PS3 might be seen as a waste of resources, depending on how much time it would take to achieve.
I hardly think a company like EA would cancel a game because of MS shenanigans, they're a multiformat developer so why should they favour one over the other, if Peter Moore favoured MS over profits then the shareholders would drive him out.
I'm sure it's just a case of simple economics, it's primarily a PC game so it was developed for that, and the 360 is easier/cheaper to port over from that. They probably looked at the cost to re-develop for the PS3 and compared it to the profits generated from other PS3 RTS games, if they found it to be not commercially viable then they have every right to cancel it.
Lots of accusations here when i think the real answer is painfully obvious...money.
I'm sure it's just a case of simple economics, it's primarily a PC game so it was developed for that, and the 360 is easier/cheaper to port over from that. They probably looked at the cost to re-develop for the PS3 and compared it to the profits generated from other PS3 RTS games, if they found it to be not commercially viable then they have every right to cancel it.
Lots of accusations here when i think the real answer is painfully obvious...money.
Stop making sense! We all know because its down to MS moneyhats or the PS3 being about as powerful as a casio calculator
I expect it was a decision based on sales, the PS3 version would not be worth the expense to port over a game that will sell less than half a million. I dont really even think the 360 version will get much over that, C+C did about 500k so i would expect the PS3 would sell less than than that. They looked at all the facts and in the end decided a PS3 port wouldnt be worth the money!
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 663
- Location
- London
meh, EA and Lucasarts - both have announced they are not releasing games for one platform or another, and both companies, imho, are 2 of the laziest with some of the buggiest games.
Anyway, C&C3 was terrible, not missing much!
Anyway, C&C3 was terrible, not missing much!
Only half the story though. It isn't all about profits, it is also about cost/income ratio. It may well be that games like RA3 have a better projected cost/income ratio if they skip the PS3 version. So they can spend £10m to get £20 rather than spending £15m to get £25m.
EA will make games for whatever format will sell enough to make it worthwhile. In short they will back any horse.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,637
- Location
- Xbox Live
Just to point out the figures being posted are revenue, not profit.
Red Alert 3 is godly by the way, been playing the Beta and its like old school C&C is back, crushes Tiberium Wars imo.
I can see it being a little hard on the 360 though, theres a lot more micromanagement now like activating secondary abilities, I'm sure they will have it sorted though.
I can see it being a little hard on the 360 though, theres a lot more micromanagement now like activating secondary abilities, I'm sure they will have it sorted though.
