Are people really suggesting that the PS3 got bad multiplats, only because it was harder to develop for than the 360? The notion that more time was spent on the PS3 developing games is far from the truth in typical scenarios last gen, some devs did not even try. The devs who did though, were able to pull equal to better performance on the PS3, like the prototype devs, rockstar after GTA4 and RDR, Criterion, Dice, Ubisoft reflections etc....
There is no doubt that the 360 was the priority system, in quite a few cases a few grade b guys were responsible for the PS3 port, hence why we had some awful ports. Of course the architecture contributed, but it was hardly the biggest contributor. Valve spoke some smack about PS3 but when it came to brass tax they still put out a superior product on the PS3 as opposed to the 360 and these guys are all about directx code.
Can somebody really look at tripe ports like Splinter Cell D.A, Bayonetta, F.E.A.R, Early days Madden and tell me that it was because the PS3 was hard to work with and could not do much better? These devs did not even try, the PS3 efforts were backburner ports because 360 was clearly the priority in those early years. How can anyone use these ports as arguments I won't know......
What's been happening this gen is far different though, we have awful ports like RE-R2, 1080p on both... worse performance on the PS4 (the more powerful system. 360 and PS3 were much closer in power than this gen (all considered) and you never had such things happening with 360 efforts, you had the complete opposite if anything as highlighted above...and no...nobody is asking that XB1's ports be downright awful as those PS3 ports were....Nobody is calling lower resolution with half the framerate type efforts???? on the XB1, I'm calling these ports "efforts" sarcastically because truly these PS3 ports were not deserving of the term efforts at all. In the same way, if gamers see some blatant misgivings about (efforts) like RE-R2 (PS4) we can call it awful and even worse because that system is much more powerful than the XB1 as opposed to slimmer differences last gen.
The 360 Xenos can't even dream to hold a GPU advantage over the RSX as large as the GPU advantage the PS4 has over the XB1. At least the PS3 had the cell to help with it's weaker GPU to balance things off, what does the XB1 have to do so? the cloud?. Such huge disparity in SC.D.A, Bayonetta and all these games had nothing to do with the PS3's architecture, in the same way RE-R2's performance has nothing to do with the PS4's architecture. It's even worse here because too many titles are being released with dubious performance and asset detail on more powerful hardware. RE-R2, Unity, Witcher 3 were all blatant pieces of code, and these are clearly "we don't give a f type scenarios". Scenarios like the division is also bad because it sets a bad precedent, since no XB1 at similar rez to the PS4 should have close performance or similar asset detail, something is clearly being left on the table here.
PS4 owners simply want better ports because pretty much every 1080p vs 900p multiplat favors the PS4 in rez and framerate, we've seen titles like Project Cars hold a 15-20fps advantage over the XB1 in certain frametests and it's at 1080p to 900p rez, a good driving simulator with lots of A.I and physyx which tasks the CPU. We've had games like TRDE which was closer to 60fps on PS4 as opposed to the 30fps with dips below that on the XB1. Nobody is pretending the PS4 should run the division at 4k here, we simply want better use made of the hardware....., hell, the division is running closer to the PS4 in asset detail and framerate than pretty much all games at 1080p vs 900p on the XB1 (where the latter should give a boost to the XB1 in framrerate)....1080p on both and they're so close...? Leaving all that performance on the table in not ideal either.
