Red Alert 3 is not coming to the PS3 yet because of the exotic system architecture.
The slow and inexorable consolification of PC games like
Command and Conquer is a thing we're not all too keen on, but the good news is that at least most games are stopping there and
Red Alert 3 for one isn't making the jump to the PlayStation 3.
Asked why the PlayStation 3 wouldn't be getting a port of
Red Alert 3, EA Westwood producer Amer Ajami said that the problem was one to do with the complexities coding for Sony's platform.
"We actually announced a PS3 version early on but that was when we were still doing a lot of technical exploration of the architecture," explained Ajami in a comment to
Videogamer.com.
"
PS3 is a very powerful system but as you guys know it's very exotic and tough to develop for and our engine really at the time wasn't designed for PS3."
Thus, EA falls back on the old and oft-cited excuse that the PlayStation 3 is too complex and difficult for most programmers to warrant working on for all but exclusive games. The complexity excuse is certainly one we've heard before, often followed by comments illustrating how Microsoft help with PC - to Xbox 360 ports and the overall familiarity of the Nintendo Wii.
The good news though is that EA isn't completely giving up on
Red Alert 3 for the PS3 and is thinking of maybe returning to the console for a port at a later date.
If you want to know more about the game then you can check out our
hands on preview of Red Alert 3, or let us know your thoughts in
the forums.
Eh. Doesn't bother me in the slightest - Gimme a PC version any day.
but don't tell me, EA, that 64bit Vista is also too exotic. come on, do some testing and support it.
RTS doesnt belong on consoles
Agreed.. EA could be arsed to port the Orange Box to the PS3 (for Valve)... Why not this (for themselves)?
They did port Orange Box.
That's what I said...
I'd say FPSes work much better on consoles than RTSes...
But, of course, FPS is best on PC.
Oh, yeah. Misread is all.
but real professional gaming is still on PC. Halo 3 isn't as professional as CSS, Halo is just fun.
Is RA3 not gonna be supported on Vista X64? If so thats a bit of a bugger.
I agree with "kenco_uk" about "Too exotic = can't be arsed" but tbh most PS3 users who like RA will get it on PC anyway.
Exactly.. playing console FPSes is for having a bit of fun around a mate's house or with mates online.. Not serious gaming.
The brilliant thing about this generation of gaming is we are getting closer and closer to everyone having access to the gaming experience they want without as much of a need for multiple platforms.
look at the gaming footage's difference, you'd see PC is much more professional with a lot better timing and training, while likings of Halo are mostly depending on autoaim to get headshots.
i can asy for fair certainty that if console gaming require pin-point accuracy and no auto-aiming, controllers will never catch up
You havnt played Halo then as there is no autoaim. Do you asume FPS on console use autoaim?? because I played loads and none that i played use autoaim.
Halo 3 definitely has auto aim.. Have you not noticed that when you look at an enemy player/character your cross hair begins to loosely follow them?
It's not pinpoint "just fire your weapon and you're guaranteed a headshot" accurate auto aiming.. but it is assisted aiming, at the very least.
I'm not saying that gaming on consoles can't be serious.. But PC pro gaming does seem more so.. and I think the fact that most casual gamers are console gamers (who don't really take an interest in games beyond Fifa, and Halo for example) and wouldn't touch a PC game with a ten-foot barge pole* doesn't exactly help the console gaming scene's image.
* because of the added complexity of having a system which is designed to perform so many different tasks beyond gaming and entertainment and therefore requires a lot more maintenance and in depth knowledge to get it to work properly.
as above said, console gaming are mostly casual.
But my argument isn't against which is platform is better, its about the fact that PC gamers have this superiority complex because they are older and built their PC themselves. Arguing that RTS's belong only on PC and that FPS's are not to be taken seriously if they are on a console is the problem I have. No games should be just for one platform, and by crossing things over and mixing things up we will come up with new exciting ways to play these games, taking the industry ahead with new ideas.
the reason PC games hate multi-platform is the fact games gets dumbed down so much for console crowd. see Bioshock, it was a good concept, but where's the inventry screen? why the re-spawn tankers? how do i manage my plasmids? it's all because there's not enough buttons on the console controller. same goes for Oblivion's dumbed down over original TES games.
dont scare me...seriously, vista has been out for kinda some time, they better support it properly.
auto-aiming? that sounds like botting in mmorpgs.. seriously, people doing either shoudnt play games at all, since they cant be a**** to paly them themself.
I agree.. Games taken from PC and put onto consoles are always dumbed down to make them more friendly to a mainstream audience.
Although, there are plenty of Indie games exclusively for PC which keep PC gaming alive and offer bucket loads of innovation.
What evidence do you have to back that up?? Sales are stronger than ever on games on consoles compared to PC. Even with the piracy on consoles, sales are strong and big. They will never die out.
Seriously are you retarded? Theres just too many pc fanboys and idiots on here to bother arguing that C&C is still going to be a great fun game no matter which platform its played on. The fact that the 360 gives me the same experiance that I liked on my pc for so long (my own music in games, full 5.1 surround, HD graphics, voice headset) has stopped me from buying a serious graphics card since I sold my 6800GT. Plus I can lie on a sofa from metres away playing it on a 42" tv if I so choose.
The PS3 itself is an odd beast in terms of hardware, the dual-core Cell Processor clocked at 3.2Ghz (with 6 SPU "Synergistic Processing Units") is a great CPU, but the bottleneck is that nasty 256MB of RAM and the 256MB video card. Can't complain too much about the GPU (at the time the PS3 was released) but 1024MB of RAM would have been a lot nicer *shrug* can't have it all eh?
console gaming is at its peak right now. but with indie developers and piracy getting battered by Steam, PC gaming is on the rise again. in the future, i can see it's either Wii-like console with PC or just PC with all the accessories.
just look at how many great games came out for jailbroken iPhones, that's the power of indie development. big-budget games will soon die out or become episodic because of the costs
More effort with the PS3 is required..... have they not seen the sales numbers this year. Consistently outselling the 360 each month. And thats in the US... where the PS3 lags in popularity. In Europe sales each month are surely higher than the 360.
Im amazed they havent announced a Wii version to be honest. Red Alert2 is like donkeys years old now, and a variation could easily be ported to the Wii (even with its underpowered spec).
So I settle on these final comments.. EA simply does not have PS3 talent it would seem. Other companies do. EA also can't add up economic potential. Stick to NFL / Madden rubbish and go make love to your 360's EA.
Does anyone else feel that "serious gaming" is kind of an oxymoronic term?
Unless you can make a living off of it, there is no such thing as "serious gaming"
And nothing of value was lost.
And yet the company still made a loss this quarter by around 11 million dollars, I think.