I can just imagine all the "OH NOES" from PS3tards and "w00ts" from x-bots over this news.

Me, I really don't care too much. It's quite funny to see some people heartbroken over this, and others overjoyed over the same thing - when really it's just all a load of bollocks anyway.
[Reply]

Fanboys will be fanboys.

Judging from the comments I've seen, it's like the game is no longer coming out on the PS3 at all!


I'm kind of wondering here though, since almost all games are coming out on all consoles anyway, wouldn't it be much more efficient to have one console in the market? What about a XPlaystationBox 720? Kind of a waste of resources to spend so much effort in developing games for so many different architectures.
[Reply]

I've wondered that before, but I think that without competition the prices could well be sky-high. Consoles aren't cheap as it is, and they're being sold for a loss.

Then again, maybe the life-span would be extended significantly if companies weren't trying to out do each other in tech-spec willy waving.

There's certainly arguments for both sides. Personally I prefer having different consoles with their own merits and weaknesses.
[Reply]

Yes, diversity is definitely a plus. If there were no competition then development would stagnate in my opinion. As for life spans, some developers talk about about ten-year cycles for their systems. Makes sense if you consider the life spans of their systems overlap a couple of years each generation change. The PS2 is still outselling most others two years into the PS3s cycle, and the PS1 was supported a long while after the PS2 came out as well.

Windows is a perfect example of what happens when there's little competition. Every person who knows what's what agrees that it is the slowest, most bloated resource-hungry beast around. But it's the industry standard now, there's no immediate need for the developer to be innovative and efficient. Keeping control is much more important.
[Reply]