Quote:
Originally Posted by The Benny (Macho)
Technology does indeed move on, but I think Gabe's opinion is that the Cell isn't moving in a direction worth going. He doesn't see other consoles or PCs adopting PS3's architecture, meaning there are few long-term benefits to going to great lengths to learn how it works, especially when approaching from the direction of porting games across.
If I remember correctly he's also been critical of Microsoft, though that's more to do with their efforts with the Live service, which approaches things differently to Valve's own Steam service.
|
What he's saying doesn't make any sense. What "direction" should the Cell be moving in? The PS2 also had completely alien hardware right off the bat, and it didn't "move" in any direction. It stayed on that one piece of hardware, and it ended up being the biggest selling console in history. 130 million units in less than 7 years is pretty impressive. No other console adopted the PS2 architecture, and they certainly didn't need to.
I believe you're looking at the EXACT same set of complaints with the PS3 as we saw early on with the PS2. Literally word-for-word. "It's too hard," "it's too different," etc, etc, etc. Just because Newell holds a lot of clout and is primarily a PC developer doesn't give him the excuse to bash on a console that other developers are embracing. I always give respect to individuals who have earned it - and Newell has earned it - but his comments have been downright adolescent in nature.
Furthermore, it's mildly hypocritical. If it's a "waste of everybody's time," why did Valve even bother to develop The Orange Box for the PS3? Wouldn't that be a "waste of time?" In the end, I understand developers having difficulty with the PS3, but from what I've seen and heard already, regarding both current and future titles AND numerous comments from developers, I can't give Newell's comments much respect.