Saw info on this a couple of days ago (and knew about it's development for the past 6months atleast), it's yet to really inspire though.
Something that is cool, is it does support MacOSX not just Windows; but a flip-side is if it is anything like the full version of this that was released to developers in the PS3 SDK, then it is very far from being the easiest thing to use.
Personally I think developers best choice right now is Renderware or Unreal Engine 3.0 for their Multiplatform needs; something many top-end developers also seem to believe.
I mean you can argue that this will only cost $1,200 (which btw in-case any of you wonder, here in the UK it's still £1,100 not £750 like the exchange rate would suggest
), but then again that's only for PS3 development.
A debug Xbox 360 will set you back £250 for the same basic package that Sony also provide.
The Xbox 360 XDK is cross-platform compatible with Windows technologies; and is also free. In order to get access to either you must first register and have your concepts accepted; oh and then there is the little matter that both require a title license fee when you wish to release.
XNA is still the cheapest multi-platform system available, and while no this doesn't support Playstation 3; you've always got Unreal Tournament 3 and the user modding allowed with that if you need some engine.
Not to mention Graphics are just one aspect of game dev, which is all Phyre (or this version anywho) provides. Networking, Input, Sound, etc... they're all just as important aspects.
I mean it's cool Sony are finally thinking of the little developers but to be honest, it's still cheaper for them to multiplatform to Microsoft platforms. Just not a sound decision to support the PS3 just yet, not without a large enough install-base that is showing it is willing to purchase more through the Playstation Store.
Any of you see the arguments in the posts below it; it's always funny watching people who have NEVER programmed these systems arguing about what Wikipedia says.
I think the funniest was them all saying that a PowerPC Processor has HyperThreading. I mean let's just back-up for a second right... we have a technology developed by Intel for a CISC processor, a technology that relies entirely upon the CISC nature of the Pentium Processor and has yet to be successfully converted by Intel to their Core Processor lines; we're to believe that this technology has somehow miriculously without some huge licensing deal, been integrated in to an IBM PowerPC Processor; which happens to be RISC in nature and actually completely incapable of performaning HyperThreading due to the simple fact it would require an additional cycle to calculate the data needed something that would completely undermine the whole point IN HyperThreading.
Not to mention that HyperThreading is not the same as additional threads, but more a consolidation of registers per loop; which would be a pretty neat trick on a PowerPC.
Also I have a feeling that even Wikipedia didn't miss the words;
IBM PowerPC 64-bit 3 Cores @ 3.2GHz, 2
Hardware Threads Per Core
Keyword has been highlighted, in-case any here miss it.
Just though I'd point it out is all, as I'm sure you guys have all heard my arguments about the actual power between the processors of these machines.
Someone waiting for some PS3 game that will just be so gob-smackingly beautiful that the 360 can't achieve; to be honest will be sorely disappointed. Fact right now isn't that developers are doing lack-luster ports from the 360 to the PS3, but that quite frankly they both handle about the same stuff - end of really.
From what I've heard, the Playstation 3 version of a title is often done first as it is more difficult to convert and engine at the same speed to the PS3 than it is from it.
This is going to do something for Sony though, either it will reinvigorate their 3rd party developers to come back and port to their system; or it'll show them that they were saving their money by not going for the expensive option.
Right now Sony are grasping at straw as far as developers are conserned; which hours after they originally announced this, it was reported on a few sites (and BBC News 24) that the BluRay format despite winning against HD-DVD may not survive itself.
Sony have a very tough year ahead of them, and I don't give a damn what analysts say; this will be the year that makes or breaks Sony. You can count on it, they're still hemoraging money; and the announcement they made last week about the new 120GB PS3 is on the way, with no backward-compatibility announcements for PS2 software. It's just not helping, not unless they can really fortify their AAA title line-up.
Alright it's not a case that Sony only have enough games that you can count them on one hand; but they're still barely in to double figures. Within a year of release the 360 had roughly 100 titles available, the PS3 barely has 25. I mean jesus I have more 360 games on my shelf than that.
They could
really cash in by opening up the PS2 library, especially if it was added to the new PSP play'n'walk crap they're adding to the XMB; but they're constantly dropping the ball.
Seriously who the hell cares even if Sony weren't lying out of their arses about the performance capabilities of the PS3; when there are sod all titles to still keep people from getting bored crapless??
Hell, I'd be just as pissed of having bought a new computer if Windows Vista has ZERO backward compatibility. Why? Cause it'd mean that I'd only have 7 games available to play from the new "Games for Windows" line, and one of them would be Shadowrun with another being Witcher.
Those two games alone almost put me of playing Windows games all together!
