| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (54)

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
im definitely buying this game nothing will stop from getting UT3 on my ps3
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Nice interview. Cheers for clearing up the rumours. Btw Jem, i get the impression that you don't know alot about modding...? In order to make mods you need the assets, and i doubt Midway are just going to give it away for free...its not logical.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
the PS3 version is gonna be too sweet!
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Why not ask the question about how they will stop cheating on the PS3 version?

How hard can it be to make a mod that hides itself but that does headshots etc...?
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
you can't be the only one to have a mod during a game.. just doesnt work like that.. if theres a modification that makes you hit the head everytime, everyone will probably be doing it too.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As on PC, for a player to play on a server, it has to have the corresponding mod. Only one mod can be active at the time.

UT3 mods on PC and on PS3 aren't some type of "sitting in the backhground for everything you do" type of deal, as little as it is for ANY other multiplayer online shooter of the same type.

What you are thinking of are HACKS, malicious code running alongside the game, modifying game data in memory so that you get a benefit. This is NOT possible on the PS3. It could be possible on the PC, depending on what type of anti-cheat-technology they choose to use to counter-measure this.

Mods != Hacks

If you go onto a server that has the mod, and the only mod (as one is max), activated, called "Ben's InstaHeadshot Mod", you know to stay clear of that.

I'm betting the server browser will also have an option to only show "clean" servers with nothing but vanilla UT3 activated. (as pretty much all other such games also do)
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:06AM erh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Only one mod at a time? That's disappointing. I'd like to be able to run a mod that makes everyone look like Stormtroopers AND run "Ben's InstaHeadshot Mod"? (I know Stormtroopers can't aim, that's why it might be fun!)
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, it would be interesting to see how the UT3 engine would handle things if I could activate the Aliens-mod AND the Predator-mod at the same time. I somehow doubt though, that it would figure out by itself how to handle that.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:49AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...everyone would lose.

the stuff he said about a "kick ass bar" was just stupid. game looks very, very fun though. i might wait on it until a sick mod becomes really popular. dust_de...?
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 10:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Sorry, why would a hack or cheat be impossible on a PS3? if it can load code in the form of mods, why not a cheat that hides itself? Do you know of some sort of secret anti-hack protection that would stop this sort of thing?

If you can create code/modifications on a PC that will run on a PS3, its entirely conceivable that you could code an undetectable cheat.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 10:27AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
As I already have explained so many times, no unsigned machinecode (which could be a hack) can run on the PS3 hardware under PS3 GameOS.

The "code" as you call it that is loaded in the mod, is a SCRIPT, as is explained in the above interview. Scripts CANNOT go beyond doing what is exposed through the engine. And the engine would never in any way, shape, or fashion, let you "hide" the presence of said mod in any way. Even less would it allow you to access memory in an unsafe fashion. Even if somehow this script could cause a buffer overrun with code injection or something like that, the PS3 hardware and GameOS has plenty of protection against letting something like that be exploited for malicious purposes. Just look up how the CELL BE works on IBM's tech/developer-site.

You might as well try to prove that the custom "skins" for the cars in Forza 2 could contain hacks or malicious code. It's the same thing. (Yes, even though you won't want to believe that, it is still true)
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 11:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
WOW, SORRY I DIDN'T REALISE SONY HAVE PRODUCED THE ONLY PROCESSOR IN THE WORLD THAT CAN NOT BE MADE TO RUN MALICIOUS CODE.

Pure shit!

A processor does what it's told, there is no MAGIC layer of protection that can prevent ALL malicious code.

JESUS, Do you seriously think there won't be copied games available for the PS3 within say 3 months time, If they can't protect themselves against that (PS It's important) how on Earth do you think they can stop someone coding a cheat when the option to download unverified content is given.

Complete and utter tripe, the word "script" is mentioned once in the post when asking how a developer can create content.



Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 12:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ben, I can clearly tell from your apparent lack of knowledge about the CELL BE that you will never even come close to comprehend that it is vastly more secure than anything you put in a PC.

The same can be said about the processors used in the Xbox360, as they too use a similar hardware protection scheme against malicious attacks.

"But anything you can put in there, which includes maps, models, Unreal Kismet scripts, Unreal Script, textures, shaders, matinee instructions."

And that you cannot understand even what a script is, is laughable.

You NEVER get to even touch machine-code with UT3. NEVER. (unless you paid in the millions of dollars for the full source code and were a trusted developer by Epic). The script environment is a SECURE environment. Just because you "download unverified content" does not mean that you can create hostile machine code as NO SUCH OPTION IS AVAILABLE.

There is no MAGIC involved, only technology, which seems to be far more advanced than your understanding of such allows.

If only you had taken my suggestion and read the about 500 page tech document detailing the inner workings of the CELL BE as I suggested, we might have avoided this. (And if you had understood the difference between script and machine code).

Ben, please, until you actually understand what you are talking about, just shut up. Please. This is just a friendly suggestion I'm making so you have the option of looking like less of an a**hole than you already do.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 12:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Shut up now!

You are sounding like a complete cretin, suggesting that UNREAL is completely unhackable unless you have spent millions of dollars on the source code. EVERY single OS in the world has been hacked, cracked and had malicious code executed on it, why is GAMEOS so special?

Processors can't be MAGICALLY PROTECTED from running cheats or other hacks. they PROCESS code, thats their job - How exactly do you suggest that they define malicious code, and decide not to run it?



Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 12:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ALso stop talking about "MACHINE CODE" like it's something from Terminator 3.

No-one has coded in MACHINE CODE for like 20 years, UNREAL is certainly not written in MACHINE CODE and neither would you need to program in MACHINE CODE to hack it.

Jeez, I haven't even heard that phrase used since I was in School, which I'm guessing you are still in.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ben. Go read the technical documents on CELL BE if you want to find out how hypervisors and such technologies work. Please.

I do not think I said it is 100% impossible to create an opportunity for a hack, this has been proven when a hacker team managed to have into the Xbox 360 "core". This was of course made impossible when the next patch was released to their OS.

But I am suggesting that the SCRIPT support (and ONLY script support) in UT3 is NOT a likely attack vector.

The Xbox 360 hack was done through as I remember a register overflow. Performing such an attack from the SCRIPT ENGINE is not especially viable whatsoever as compared to creating a malicious save-game-file or other binary data that has to be processed by virtually insecure functions.

So, until hyper visors are in full use on the PC market too, please read up on what they and other such technologies accomplish.

It's not for no reason that there STILL haven't been any news of hacking the GameOS from PS3 Linux, where you at least, actually can have access to compile, AND RUN actual machine code (again, under the protection of the Hypervisor)

And as a FYI, the "hack" that allows running of pirated games on Xbox 360 takes advantage of the fact that the DVD-Reader in the Xbox 360 tells the console whether or not the disc it is reading is a legit disc or not. To circumvent this, you can flash the control circuitry on the reader as it was not then, and as far as I know, not now either, checked for legitimacy. The contents on the priated disc it reads must still be SIGNED and NON-MODIFIED.

If you feel that it is easier to call all of this MAGIC, and not science, then go ahead.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ben... my god.

If you think a computer executes ANYTHING else but machine code, then I'm not even going to be able to convince you on this matter, no matter how hard I try.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Missed the point completely, I doubt any humans have coded anything significant in Machine code for decades.

0FA4BC376461264 214789184787X

That my friend is what machine code more or less looks like, which is why no-one codes in it.

I also fail to see how virtualising the O/S somehow makes it immune to subversive or malicious code, it may protect the O/S or hardware itself from permanent damage, but not the code running within that virtualisation from mischief.

Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The point of machine code is that it is the only form of "language" a CPU can understand. It is 100% binary, and is created now-a-days in a vast majority of cases with the help of our friendly "compilers". These "compilers", programs that take human readable text, "code", and "compiles" it into machine code, which can be loaded into RAM on the executing system.

Since a SCRIPT, is not machine code, nor is it compiled to machine code, it IS VERY LIMITED by what the SCRIPT ENGINE allows. It is not executed by the CPU in such, but by the SCRIPT ENGINE. (Which in turn executes on the CPU). This means that it can be secured from hostile attacks VERY easily. The engine is 100% in charge, if it doesn't like the way your script looks in any way... well, nothing's going to happen as it simply denies "execution" of it.

And regarding the HYPERVISOR, the main job of it is to make certain (amongst other things) that the code executing on the processor, never, EVER, touches the controlling code behind it, securing the core system from attacks. Ie. your MAGIC SHIELD or whatever it was. And since these games which execute on both the Xbox 360, and the PS3, HAVE to access (through the protection of the hypervisor) the core system, in order to work. It is VERY unlikely that you can bypass the restrictions it imposes on running code.

And as griffin also states, there are other counter-measures in place as well to protect the system from executing potentially harmfull or unsigned code.

The reason that the direct hack (by means of register overflow or whatever it was) was able to succeed on the Xbox 360 with old "firmware", was that a hole, on machine code level had been left open by mistake.

No such holes have been at least publicly disclosed in regards to the hypervisor running on the PS3. This does not exclude the possibility that there were such holes available in older firmwares, but that have been patched since.

It still does not mean that the SCRIPTS in UT3 are a viable attack vector in any way.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 are miles, if not farther away from "crude" technology such as the Xbox 1, PSP, and PS/PS2 when it comes to protecting the system. It does not make them unbreakable, but they will sure as hell put up a fight for years to come.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 3:08PM Dahk said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Lol KawF thanks for some of that education there =D.

I actually learned something at work today. Boojyeah!
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 3:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jeez...

GCSE Computing I bet....

The Hypervisor (Virtualisation of the OS) has nothing to do with running cheats or hacks that dont damage or change the OS/Hardware, they are there to keep the OS intact. It basically runs a copy of the O/S as a layer on top of the actual O/S as a guest O/S that makes systems calls to the hardware or original O/S. Thereby protecting the system from damage.

I don't see any way that it can stop cheats or hacks from working, they would run as normal in the Virtual O/S but simply terminate at the end of the session, without any impact on the O/S itself.

I hope that you are aware that hypervisors and virtualisation are there to protect the O/S and hardware, and NOT the code they temporarily implement (in the case of a hack/cheat).


Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 6:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"no one has written anything in machine code in years"? lol. if youre not a programmer, or have no knowledge of creating games dont make blanket assumptions like that.

the reason most games are written in c/c++ is because c is fast. as fast as c is, assmebly is even faster. parts that need to run /really/ fast are written/ optimized in assembly.

you would be amazed to learn just how many of your favorite games have sections of code written in assembly. [ESP ps2 games]
Reply

Posted: Aug 7th 2007 1:40AM MrClickerson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
After reading through all of this, I have concluded that Ben is a total retard, and unworthy of posting on these blogs/forums ever again.

Ben, you need to educate yourself before you speak, and by all means don't argue with someone who has.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 8:42AM erh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"when you license Unreal Engine 3 you get access to our development server where we do all of our source control."
and
"The engine is constantly being improved, as I said. So the content just isn't compatible."

As a software developer, let me say that it is much harder to develop on a constant shifting code base. Suddenly, stuff you've created no longer works with the engine! That would be like trying to build a house on the back of a moving flat-bed truck!

"If people are trying to ship their games ahead of us then yeah, they'll have to do some of those optimisation steps on their own, or wait for us."

No wonder Silicon Knights got pissed! Epic admits the engine is not done. And if it's not done, then it probably hasn't been through proper QA either.

"We've demonstrated that over and over again and we've maintained some versions for well over a year. We don't have an exact plan with what we're going to do after we've shipped the game, but history shows that we will do stuff with it."
and
"The other problem is, you have to look at what options are worth delaying the game for. We want to ship the game as soon before Christmas as possible."

In other words, Epic uses downloadable patches as crutch to sell feature-incomplete products.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yes, it is hard to program against a moving API, but programming against a constant API, that is getting improved upon, and possibly added to, not altered, is easy in comparison. It's like claiming that it's hard to program for Windows because it's had it's Win32 API since forever and stuff added to it, and it itself has been tuned, etc.

As long as the software is API stable...

Btw, my experience as a developer is that an engine is NEVER done. You just have to choose which version you want to base your code off of, and if that version is considered to be for that time, feature complete release, I see no problems with it.

MArk even answers this: "... about once a month we'll put a build through quality assurance testing. This is then an approved build, or a "blessed" build as we call them."

On the PC platform, you do really have to maintain your software over the years. Every year, even every month at worst, there's a new piece of hardware. People will buy that hardware, people will play the game. When these people see that the game crashes because the hardware or the game are incompatible with eachother.. well, what do you do? Just say, "well f* them, we don't care!", or do you say, well, I see you have a problem there, we'll go ahead and fix that.

Or were you waiting all this time for PC2 to succeed PC because you thought it was a locked down system with nothing happening?

Vista for one has farked over many a developer. I don't even want to think about how the product I've been working on full time over the past 3 years on is going to run on it. I'm blissfully unknowing, until the day our tech-department decides to be "nice" to us and do a company wide update of the machines again.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:29AM erh said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
KawF, it sounds like the API is *not* stable based on the "So the content just isn't compatible" quote.

Game development cycles are long. If a developer locked down the engine version when they started a year ago, they would not be able to take advantage of the bug fixes and optimizations of the newer versions. But if they choose to upgrade the engine version, the content they created a year ago "just isn't compatible" with the new engine!

As for putting the engine through QA once a month, what kind of "quality assurance testing" are they doing? Thorough QA testing for something as large as a game engine would take longer than a month! I write much smaller libraries, and some of them have taken over a month to fully verify.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, as a side note, just because you branched off your code at say 1.2.0.0, it does not mean that you cannot port fixes, and optimizations from 1.2.1.0, or even 1.3.0.0, or even more still 2.0.0.0. It just means that i's going to be a thorough hassle.

I know, as I spent most of my time before my all to short vacation which is soon over, doing just that.


But yes, it would seem that something is not too stable in the UT3 development. Exactly what "content" if I remember the quote correctly, refers to, I can only speculate in, to me it seems to have more to do with model-file-formats etc, than actual code API. But that does not make it much better, possibly it's an even worse situation depending on the tools provided and existing.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
coding against a moving engine is tough, but what developers often do is pick a 'blessed' version or a 'stable build' as a footprint and build off of that.

imagine choosing a linux kernel to build your application on. it works fine on that kernel. if a newer kernel becomes available, you recompile your code for that kernel and if there are any problems with dependencies that arise, you either abandon the new kernel branch and continue on as normal, or you just patch the section of your code thats now buggy. developers arent trying their code on every single new build of the engine.

you dont start building a house and then change the foundation. if you can get away with it, fine. but youre gonna have to fix the few bricks that get broken when you shift the foundation. if you dont want to fix what breaks, maybe you shouldnt even bother trying to alter the foundation.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:03AM Anticrawl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have a canker sore in the corner of my mouth and I keep poking at it but that's just making it worse.

Anyway, why not ask some about the 360 version, we really haven't heard much about it, only them babbling on about the PC and PS3 version. Will probably go PC at the end of the day though. I can't wait to make my Mast... Mister Chief mod for Unreal Tournament 3.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:06AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
good work!

to be honest, most people who plan on building mods will be buying and playing the pc game in the first place, ps3 gamers will just be reaping the fruits of those labors...

of course, rein can't admit that, because it would imply the best version is the pc version, which it of course will be =)
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:25AM Anticrawl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Of course the best version will be on the PC. Epic wouldn't want to alienate their loyal Unreal fans.

In any case what ever happened to the two console games being somewhat different gameplay wise than it's PC counterpart. The PC version being more run-n-gun heavy like the older games and the console versions relying more on vehicle combat than solely foot combat.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 9:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man these console only people have NO idea what mods actually are ahah. There's no way they could possibly be made on a PS3, it isn't just like some little level creator thing like a few console FPS games have had in the past. You're basically making an entirely different game based on UT if that's how far you want to take it, needing things like your own models, textures, sounds, etc.
Reply

Posted: Aug 7th 2007 1:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree there will be cheaters big time even though their will be some awesome mods. Im not sure which will end up better. The ps3 or 360 version? In short term 360 might have more users play it but in long run the ps3 mods might outweight the 360 benefits and then they will finally get more users.
http://tinyurl.com/pv8do
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 10:35AM BlackIceJoe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That was a cool read there was a lo of good stuff.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 10:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Steam allows you to download the source SDK without paying a dime, although its very tough to beta test if you can't play your own game.

would be nice if they made some unlock tool on the PS3 disk so you could grab the SDK off that, at least then you could use the PS3 linux to create then play it on your the same machine.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 11:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Mouse and keyboard support for the PS3 version is a huge deal to me. If you feel the same way, please send an email to mrein@epicgames.com asking for it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 11:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes I would be really disappointed if UT3 doesn't support M+KB on PS3. What I really would like to see is when you plug in M+KB the game bumps up your movement speed, etc. to be identical with the PC settings, and you can only play online with PC players and other PS3 players with M+KB, and if you use a controller the settings go to the console mode and you play online with the other controller players.

Not getting my hopes up though.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 11:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
ps3 version is the best one then the pc version and then hopefully the x360 version will even be good because microsoft is about to be fucked .i think epic wont do gears of war 2.because gears could never be like mega man.fist they need to publish there own games and they wll be dominant like capcom...but thats alland good but ps3 serves well
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 11:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I had to stop laughing reading that interview...

Joystiq. Hire someone who knows how the game modding works...
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 11:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm completely baffled at Jem for pressing the question concerning PS3 players getting a free toolset for the PC. That's ridiculous. It's on a completely different platform. The toolset is a huge selling point for the PC version, so I'm not to sure what he was barking at. Same with Valve's SDK, how are you going to test it without buying HL2 Source? Oh well. I think console only gamers have a lot to learn when it comes to the mod scene, people don't know what they're missing.

UT XMP anyone? can't wait...
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 12:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is to mark and anyone else at Epic, yes us PS3 owners want mouse and keyboard support, this is a big want not just from me but a very large group of owners on http://www.ps3forums.com

We want this as alot of us could not keep up with the PC tech and thus have placed our bets on the PS3 being able to deliver gauranteed great games with great fetures not available on any other system.

Anyone else that wants this feature lets make it known as apparantly Mark/Epic do not know this as of yet. Even if like Mark says they do not want to delay the game, please at least gaurantee us that it will be in a patch. Anyways this is our chance to let them know, so please do it! Thanks

Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ben Hobbs

You are a clueless moron.

Unreal script is a text based scripting language. As long as the engine is secure, then you will not be able to hack the code..

It's like me saying you can write whatever you want in Notepad and MSPaint, the security comes from Paint/Notepad themselves, not the non executable code they work on.

And yes, processors can tell the difference between executable code and non-executable hack code. Most new CPU's have NX register for this very purpose (non execute).
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 3:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sure because there's no such thing as a backdoor and the people coding the scripting engine are always the best coders in the world, so its unthinkable that anyone could code something with malicious intent.

I think I read exactly the same thing about HD movies being unhackable, Oh and Vista etc.. etc..
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 1:37PM Starcade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was beginning to think they wasn't going to be a Mark Rein story featured today. Can't have a day without quoting or featuring him. (sigh)
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 2:47PM HelghanSuperSniper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yes my PS3 brethren, I have found THE WAY...yield to your earthly desires of deathmatch and capture the flag in the world of UT3 and your dreams of Mouse and Keyboard support...I have foretold of a BETTER WAY and that way is...


SPLITFISH


In other words...buy the controller and you get near mouse and keyboard support and a better controller setup than any dual analog will ever provide. The spiltfish is just as good if not better than the Wiimote for FPSgames. Believe it. I've been using it for Resistance for months and it's hot!
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 3:45PM KanoBlade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You cannot run unsigned code on the PS3, the OS makes sure of that.

As for creating malicoius mods, it's not going to happen, no one will play in a server that is running that malicious mod.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 3:44PM Megaqwerty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The PS3 version is slower. The PC version is faster. This apparently prevents cross-platform play. After contemplating this issue for a great period of time, I have devised a temporary solution:

Make two game modes.

Congrats, Epic, I just solved your apparent problem in the span of about five seconds. I would actually love a game speed slider: max it out when you want some crazy arcade fun and turn down for something a little (just a little) more tactical.

The real issue why cross-platform won't be in is due to the certification issues on PSN (as well as XBL), as mentioned in the interview, that prevent the PC version from being wholly update while the PS3 waits for its patches to go through the cert process. Why Rein didn't blame this for the lack of cross-platform play is beyond me.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 5:04PM Seroth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you've got the PC version to make mods, why would you buy the PS3 version? I mean, obviously, if you've got the PC version and are making mods, you have a PC capable of running UT3, meaning there's little to no reason to have the PS3 version...

But all that means is that PS3 UTers won't be making mods.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2007 6:33PM Aeon74 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

PS3 KB/M support is an absolute must have for me to consider buying this game. There is no way Id play it using the PS3 controller. This is the one game that could turn the PS3 into a PC rival for FPS games.

I can easily imagine a future where PC's are dirt cheap on your desk for office/email/web use, and next to it is your gaming engine (PS3/4 etc) with full KB/M support to play all your games on, without having to fork out a vast fortune to NVIDIA/ATI for a half decent PC graphic s card.

Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2007 6:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
nice interview, sorry if double posted
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW