Sony NDA prohibits developers opinions

[patsu]

Whether other companies have similar contracts I don't know. I would be rather surprised about it, but I don't know.

But really, think about it. What is the only reason Sony would require an NDA like this? They're afraid that the response will be significantly negative. There's no other rational explanation I can think of. So why are you trying to spin it as Sony holding back any developer opinions? That's just the best way for Sony to hold back negative opinions.

See Apple. It helps to generate buzz after launch. It doesn't have to be negative opinions too.

In any case, once the launch is over... the relevant info will become public (dev knowhow is still confi as always).

The article actually tells me more about destructoid's anxiety, rather than anything special/evil about Sony's NDA.

 

[Nesh]

By the way, in the last generation what was most important for the technical advantage of Xbox over PS2 (not that it helped them that much) was a) the amount of memory and b) the arguably better for general use GPU. It was not the CPU by any means. Why is Cell now considered so important?

XBOX was generally more powerfull. The difference in performance in their GPU's was so huge that any other differences were totally outweighted. This time around PS3 and 360 are so similar performance wise that any difference counts.
The reason why Cell gets such an attention is simple. Physics and AI. Appart from graphics, these were what PS2 also demonstrated for the first time as well when it was first shown gaining much more interest.

 

[Farid]

Is that another insightful article from a gaming blog? A gaming blog that has its facts checked and doesn't jump to conclusions based on fragmentary information?

 

[-tkf-]

I think though, -tkf- that your perspective is colored by the fact that you would consider negative comments about the XBOX and 360 as facts (and therefore not trolling and rumor-mongering) as opposed to the negative comments about the PS3 which surely must have an ulterior motive.

No i honestly think that the XBOX was the most powerfull Console, though much of the percieved power came from the 64MB vs 32MB, the reason being that it very rarely got a chance to really shine, mostly because of it´s limited life span. We all know what weakness the PS2 had, but apart from a presumed bandwidth problem because of the unified memory i really dunno much about the XBOX weakpoints.

And again with the 360 very little "bad" stuff is known, is the 360 cpu really on par with the Cell (or faster as microsoft suggested)? is the Xenon really that incredible compared to the RSX? We only know "bad stuff" about the PS3, nothing about the 360, of course most of the bad stuff comes from developers that are traditionally PC based, but still, it is accepted as facts on many boards (teh interweb!).

 

[TheChefO]

No i honestly think that the XBOX was the most powerfull Console, though much of the percieved power came from the 64MB vs 32MB, the reason being that it very rarely got a chance to really shine, mostly because of it´s limited life span. We all know what weakness the PS2 had, but apart from a presumed bandwidth problem because of the unified memory i really dunno much about the XBOX weakpoints.

And again with the 360 very little "bad" stuff is known, is the 360 cpu really on par with the Cell (or faster as microsoft suggested)? is the Xenon really that incredible compared to the RSX? We only know "bad stuff" about the PS3, nothing about the 360, of course most of the bad stuff comes from developers that are traditionally PC based, but still, it is accepted as facts on many boards (teh interweb!).

I'd say on this board you would have to search pretty hard to find someone claiming cell to be the weaker of the two. If you want to look for a negative of xb360 then that's a clear case. DVD storage space is another clear case.

The questioning and negativity surrounding ps3 I think is mostly due to the higher cost. If they were both the same price I doubt you would hear as much negativity. People would still complain as the price is much more expensive than their last effort but when xb360 is as close tech-wise to ps3 as it is and is significantly cheaper is where the complaints/negativity roll in. Along with Sony's percieved arrogance doesn't paint a pretty picture.

My thoughts anyway.

edit - not to say it doesn't have value for this added cost! Just saying for someone looking for a games only machine the additional cost can be hard to justify.

 

[mrcorbo]

No i honestly think that the XBOX was the most powerfull Console, though much of the percieved power came from the 64MB vs 32MB, the reason being that it very rarely got a chance to really shine, mostly because of it´s limited life span. We all know what weakness the PS2 had, but apart from a presumed bandwidth problem because of the unified memory i really dunno much about the XBOX weakpoints.

And again with the 360 very little "bad" stuff is known, is the 360 cpu really on par with the Cell (or faster as microsoft suggested)? is the Xenon really that incredible compared to the RSX? We only know "bad stuff" about the PS3, nothing about the 360, of course most of the bad stuff comes from developers that are traditionally PC based, but still, it is accepted as facts on many boards (teh interweb!).

I think what you have been seeing (from devs) is frustration with Sony's lack of execution more than a real disdain for the console itself. If the dev tools were in a more developed state and devs could be spending their time pushing the boundaries of the hardware instead of struggling (and in some cases failing) to meet a performance baseline established by the 360 you may be hearing more positive comments. And I think you will.

I'm personally looking forward to seeing what both of these machines are capable of as the talented folks in the development community begin to figure out how to really exploit their capabilities.