It's not a dumb question because I can hardly understand it either, but yeah, from what I gather it does mean something, because it has to do with what's on screen and how the game moves along as a result of its speed and the processing power -- it doesn't have to do with how many fps your TV can output.Here's a dumb question: If I don't have one of these newer, high end HDTV's...does that frame rate really mean anything?
In other words, it's not like this 1080p/24 fps deal -- which so few sets have. I was reading the thing about the Toshiba HD-DVD players being upgraded to 24 fps, and then I was like, who cares, DLP's can't do 24 fps to begin with and my LCD can't either. lol
Here's more from that article:
Aside from the simple fact that this puts the PS3 at a disadvantage (again), this situation (and Sony's response to it) raises all kinds of questions: is Sony's console really that much more difficult to develop for? What is Sony doing to educate its third parties on PS3 development? And after Karraker's comment, do they even care to help? A few weeks ago, Karraker tackled the subject on Sony's PlayStation blog:
"If your game starts on Xbox 360 you will have to re-engineer aspects of the game to run properly on PS3. This means additional effort. Some developers have been complaining about this but I don't believe we can solve that. Xbox 360 is a different machine with good, but lower powered hardware in a different architecture. Developers have to view them as two different machines not as a common platform."
It's worth pointing out that EA's been working on Xbox 360 hardware a full year longer than PS3. With Madden, it's almost understandable, but 2K is having the same issues with All-Pro Football 2K8, a game built from the ground up to be released on both platforms.
If that's the case these publishers probably don't feel it's worth the effort to spend additional $$$ on the PS3 version development at this point in time. Who knows.