[Annelies]

Originally Posted by skod I don't get the "exclusive content" thing. Why the f*** would you want this? Does it make you feel good to play something that others cannot play? What would you have to gain by holding other people out?

As soon as I read your post a slew of childhood memories literally took control of my brain and forced me to reminisce of my childhood, specifically of me playing Metal Gear Solid on the original PlayStation in 1998-1999 which was a phenomenal experience. I was later introduced to Metal Gear Solid 2 and Metal Gear Solid 3, which I enjoyed and still enjoy to this day on the PlayStation 2. I purchased Metal Gear Solid 4 in 2008 -- the limited edition no less. It was the best game I ever played on the PlayStation 3. I enjoyed all of these games on the PlayStation platform. I guess over the years I've manifested an emotional attachment towards the PlayStation brand when it comes to Metal Gear Solid. It just hurts me to see it on any other platform.

[crazelunatic]

I for one like that its cross-platform. (and for those that say optimization gets lost with multi-platform thats only true for the "lead" platform, in this case its the pc) More people get to enjoy a great game and come on if people werent wowed by this pc tech demo I can't imagine what else they could possibly want

[Cheesethief]

Originally Posted by crazelunatic I for one like that its cross-platform. (and for those that say optimization gets lost with multi-platform thats only true for the "lead" platform, in this case its the pc) More people get to enjoy a great game and come on if people werent wowed by this pc tech demo I can't imagine what else they could possibly want

No. There is quality loss all throughout. The game is coded with the thought in mind that it will be multi-platform so it cannot take full potential of a high-end PC, otherwise it would be hell to port it over to the aging hardware in the 360 and PS3. PS3 suffers most when games ported to it, they look worse than either the 360 or PC.

[malex]

Originally Posted by Cheesethief No. There is quality loss all throughout. The game is coded with the thought in mind that it will be multi-platform so it cannot take full potential of a high-end PC, otherwise it would be hell to port it over to the aging hardware in the 360 and PS3. PS3 suffers most when games ported to it, they look worse than either the 360 or PC.

Well I think the main issue there is, for a multiplatform game, do devs optimize for the ps3 and face problems with the PC and 360, which as far as I have heard are quite similar, or optimize for 2 platforms and suffer on 1? It's a shame that console manufacturers will probably never get on the same page to make it easier for developers to code on all the consoles.

I do think it's pretty cool to watch how a console progresses over the years from having craptastic looking games, to blowing our minds with the gfx and sounds later in the generations, but being able to enjoy those late gen games earlier in the generation would certainly not be a bad thing.

[SuperDre]

Originally Posted by malex but being able to enjoy those late gen games earlier in the generation would certainly not be a bad thing.

Yes would not be a bad thing, but then again it wouldn't be a good thing either, cause it means the top of the console has been reached.. Personally I don't mind longer periods for a console, it means they can invest more time in trying to understand the console and get the most out of it (they learn with every game more and more how to utilize the console better), and hopefully the technology for a nextgen will advance a bit better. As a console owner you don't want to have to buy a new console every 2-3 year, if you really want that, then you're better of with a PC..

That's the problem with PC-hardware, because better GPU/CPU's arrive every half year, no developer is actually gonna try and use the complete hardware (also the fact there are so many different GPU's out ther for PC's doesn't make it easier too). Or developers rely on faster CPU's. Just look at Android, you've got a beautifull tablet like the XOOM, but it's being held back by the slow dalvik/android OS, which is a big shame as the hardware is much more capable (seeing the Android OS ported to C#/Mono has an increase of perfomance between 40 to 80%!! that's a lot).

15-20 years ago, there weren't that many GPU/CPU's and the cycle of newer better hardware wasn't as fast as now, so developers where actually trying to get the most out of those..

[malex]

Don't misunderstand, I'll never be an advocate of short console life spans. One of the reason I was a fan of sony was precisely because the shelf life for both the ps1 and ps2 was so long. And as I said, I do enjoy watching the transitions in the games quality, but if the console is easier for developers to understand and instead of them being able to tap 30% of it's resources, they can tap 85% from the get go then that would be great.

The problem with sony consoles is that by the time devs figure out how to do stuff we are always reaching the end of the current gen, but the fact that they can optimize things so well shouldn't necessarily mean we have to move on.

Of course, that means that PC gamers would have to learn to chill out because you've got some angry nerds that get insulted if a console port isn't running at 60FPS @ 1080p+ resolutions with 16X AA and everything else. I've always said that consoles can't compete against PCs and those that want them to should just stick to dropping $500+ on a GPU every 4 - 5 years which is not bad really.