In the news today, 99% of all developers in the world are lazy, specifically directed towards PS3 development.
When questioned about this laziness on a single platform, one developer (who asked to be un-named) stated: "Yeah, we just really didn't want to do any work, really. I mean, sure we'd make more money and everything, but we made one version work already - and that takes a lot of effort."
When pressed further on why one platform worked fine, yet the other did not, the man in question replied: "We're just used to one way of doing things, and even though over the years those have changed entirely multiple times, this particular instance [of PS3 architechture] Is just beyond us. I mean, the cell processor is worth like, a million 360 processors. Maybe a billion."
This just means one thing though, most devs are just programmed in their head to work on the PC by default (due to the way they learnt the ropes and so on) so it makes it a lot easier to work on a 360 and to learn a slightly different architecture always has issues for them. I mean remember the Intel vs PowerPC days. It's a bit more to do with human fallibility rather than any software.
I don't have any particular brand loyalty but what this makes me think is that soon practically every system might just end up being the same architecture inside just very minor differences and that's just not really great. I mean all Macs use intels now and all PCs use intel and the only real difference now is the O/S, exclusive games and software and of course the price. In some ways it works out for the consumer but in some ways it's just whatever really. I think devs need to work a bit more to keep the variation and not just first party games. I mean otherwise in the end by the 5th generation or so we'll end up with practically the same consoles just under different brand names because the manufacturers will listen to the devs. It's fine but in some ways not so fine either.
....it was often hard to keep track of the action because of the graphical issues on PS3.
These problems ARE NOT DUE TO GRAPHICAL ISSUES ON THE PS3!
They are DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS FROM THE DEVELOPERS.
The PS3 is more than capable of smooth frame rates and sharp definition, in fact it's more powerful than the 360. What causes these issues is the way the game is developed for the platform, not due to any imagined 'faults' of the system.
@wonderboy13: Tell Konami it's more powerful. Tell them, after they spent so many years trying to make their masterpiece work at something better than 720p and 24fps, never mind the marvelous 1080p60 trailer they showed off very early on.
I bought the PS3 but I don't dare to maintain any illusions about its power. Not after three years and not a single non-contestable specimen of cross-platform superiority (the opposite, in fact), never mind the unilaterally superior omnibus we should hypothetically have seen. Sometimes, a bigger price means nothing more than a shorter laser wavelength.
@melonpans: The Cell processor is central brain surrounded by 7 smaller sub-brains. As I understand it (and anyone can feel free to correct me on this), the sub-brains cannot speak to each other, but only to the central brain, which means that anything that the sub-brains have to do must be routed through the central brain. This means that the programmers must create entirely different code than traditional, since the Cell architecture and data traffic management is entirely different than classic PC architecture, which is what the Xbox 360 is based upon.
This is typically why third-party manufacturers have a tougher time with the PS3; when developing a multi-console release, they typically begin with PC/Xbox 360 development because its what they're more familiar with, then port to PS3. Ever notice how the best looking games on the PS3 are the ones made by Sony's in-house first-party devlopers? That's because they know the architecture better, have access to more development tools, AND (this is the most important one), they don't have to worry about coding for any other system other than the PS3.
TL;DR: Sony first-party devs make the best looking games because they can afford to.
@Shinta: Developers are STILL struggling with this? I thought it was old news that it's always better to have PS3 as the lead console since it's easier to port the PS3 build to 360. What the hell? did Sega/Platinum miss that memo?
(Looks at Devil May Cry 4, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, and Batman AA.....)
Platinum, You can't suck this hard when other companies have gotten it right.
@Striderhayasa - Can we get some damn m/kb support?!: I was at Bestbuy about to buy an Xbox 360. A salesman talked me into buying a PS3 instead. I didn't buy it then, as I planned on doing a little more research.
Now I hear about this.
I'll probably just skip this whole fraking generation.
@OW-Holmes--Upset with Polling: if you got a good gaming PC, you can pretty much skip this gen. IMO, while i own a 360 and ps3, there aren't really that many worthwhile exclusives on em.
@OW-Holmes--Upset with Polling: First of all, you should never listen to anyone at Best Buy concerning technical, videogaming, marital issues, what have you.
Second of all, you should really consider what exclusives you are most interested in, before deciding on a console.
Yes, the PS3 is still as difficult as ever, and it was not necessarily ever going to be the case that simply time would alleviate that.
It's STILL HARD to run a marathon with your feet tied together? Yep...
It's better from the perspective of the PS3 version to port from PS3 to X360 if you're not concerned with making the best possible version of the game on the X360, and not trying to optimize for total project cost. Here's kind of how it works:
A.
Develop on PS3, port to X360:
1. PS3 version is consistently good
2. X360 version is consistently good
3. Development goes "PS3 speeds" which is inherently more difficult.
4. X360 version is not as good as it could be.
B.
Develop on X360, port to X360:
1. X360 version is consistently good
2. PS3 version is less good
3. Development goes at "X360 speeds" which is faster and less costly
4. PS3 version is not as good as it could be.
So, if you weigh the relative importance of PS3 vs. X360, which is not even because X360 has the much larger install base, the main differing factors is the #3 term of each, which is harder and slower development vs. faster and easier = cheaper.
You may objectively know that leading on PS3 will lead to a "smoother" development cycle for the PS3, but it doesn't mean that you can afford it!
i agree this is some bs. i look at all my games in my shelf, and i have played very good looking games on the system. (playing Batman AA too!)
for ghostbusters it was small fries, but for Bayonetta, this is just unacceptable. they better fix it or i'm not buying. ithat ssimple. 60 bucks does not grow on trees.
@pandafresh: All I have is a laptop that struggles along on Fallout 3. I am tempted to just get a new PC and be done with it. Im more of a PC gamer anyway.
This decision was so much easier when I was a punk kid.
Why are some of you still mad at the developers when the games look like crap on the PS3? You people make no sense at all. All of the developers have said the PS3 is a problem and SONY is the cause NOT THEM. Grow up an accept that Sony failed on the design system and go after SONY for making another system, PS2, that has a non standard design system. Sony never listened to developers during the design part and now your paying the price. STOP blaming the developers and blame SONY would you. Demand that the PS4 uses a standard design that developers are trained in and don't have to relearn design just for their system. 360 multi-games look great so it's not the developers. Grow up and blame the real people responsible, Sony. God some of you are so blind by being a Sony Fanboy that you can't accept the truth. You make me sick with your complaining. Show Sony by not buying their junk and demand that the PS4 is easy to use then we can all enjoy the same game no matter the platform. One developer making a crappy game then yeah its the developer but game after game by different people? By a damn clue people.
@bigd7387: Game after game? So why are SONY 1st party stellar? Do they know something others don't? Do they already have the magic PS3 wand? Sony should do the hardware and MS the software BTW. But this will never happens and we will always end up with a crappy machine (MS) and a hard system to develop on (SONY).
@bigd7387: While I agree with you to an extent, a good programmer should know how to adapt to new architectures. Considering the SPU's are Stream Processors, they shouldn't have a problem getting the graphical fidelity up to par. (FYI, GPUs are stream processors).
Like I said, I do agree that changing the architecture every gen is a pain in the ass for devs, but the thing is, by working on different architectures, they learn valuable experience and even learn new techniques.
Also, the Cells architecture is very similar to the upcoming Larrabee. And if things are going the way they are, devs will be working on very similar architectures.
Before any of you guys get mad, yes, Larrabee is eons ahead of the cell, but the fact is they are both based on parallel architectures. It's just Larrabee actually has a sufficient front bus to support data transfer, etc.
Riddle me this genius. Why isn't a studio like Team Ninja having problems? Oh yes, they realize it's a different console and code the games accordingly. So if you're a developer and know that certain methods don't work well with a hardware, and still use them, who's to blame? The hardware manufacturer? Guess again.
At this stage of the console cycle, the only thing looking bad is the developer.
Sony has access to the best development tools and is willing to spend as much time required to polish its games. You cannot expect third-party developers to spend more time to handle an unwieldy system which typically sells less than its easier to develop competitors sell. That's hardly to say some third-parties cannot do just that, but Platinum Games likely has far fewer resources and time as a developer such as Capcom would have.
@bigd7387: Hold on there swammi...Regardless of how Sony gimped the tools or the tech of the PS3, the reality of it is companies have already proven time and again that they can get the Ps3 builds of their games to look and run as good as the 360 versions. Exclusives on PS3 speaks for themselves. I STILL can't believe my PS3 can run Uncharted 2 without melting. (I'll believe it when I see it.)
What's Platinum's excuse? What's Sega's excuse? I just played the demo for BatDude Arkam AssAssyum and it looks and runs great on Ps3. Downloaded the demo for Wet too and while not as impressive as BatBitch overall, it's good.
PS3 develop environment has been well publicized. If a developer can't get their shit together at this stage then they just suck. If this was a launch title then I would be more forgiving...actually...no I wouldn't because as short as it is, Heavenly Sword still looked fantastic and it's a first gen game.
"shakes fist" DAMN YOU SONY! WHY CAN'T WE GET A SEQUEL?! WHYYYYYYY!
Looks like I'll be waiting until the future when I eventually get a 360 to play this game. I have a PS3 right now, but this sounds like buying a Wii port of Bayonetta or something. The experience is actually hampered due to a less impressive graphical performance, and I refuse to play anything but the ideal version of the game.
Same reason why I waited to jump into this generation until I got an HDTV. I don't understand people who can settle to play games and throw away 75% of the artistic detail that graphic artists spent months on.
This makes me mad. There is no excuse for cross platform games to be better/worse on one console as opposed to the other. Especially when the game was developed for both side by side. Fuck, come on Platinum games. You were the people behind Okami. Don't disappoint me with this.
09/02/09
In the news today, 99% of all developers in the world are lazy, specifically directed towards PS3 development.
When questioned about this laziness on a single platform, one developer (who asked to be un-named) stated: "Yeah, we just really didn't want to do any work, really. I mean, sure we'd make more money and everything, but we made one version work already - and that takes a lot of effort."
When pressed further on why one platform worked fine, yet the other did not, the man in question replied: "We're just used to one way of doing things, and even though over the years those have changed entirely multiple times, this particular instance [of PS3 architechture] Is just beyond us. I mean, the cell processor is worth like, a million 360 processors. Maybe a billion."
09/27/09
09/02/09
09/01/09
Good thing I thought this game looked lame from the start, or else I might have been disappointed.
09/01/09
I don't have any particular brand loyalty but what this makes me think is that soon practically every system might just end up being the same architecture inside just very minor differences and that's just not really great. I mean all Macs use intels now and all PCs use intel and the only real difference now is the O/S, exclusive games and software and of course the price. In some ways it works out for the consumer but in some ways it's just whatever really. I think devs need to work a bit more to keep the variation and not just first party games. I mean otherwise in the end by the 5th generation or so we'll end up with practically the same consoles just under different brand names because the manufacturers will listen to the devs. It's fine but in some ways not so fine either.
09/01/09
These problems ARE NOT DUE TO GRAPHICAL ISSUES ON THE PS3!
They are DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS FROM THE DEVELOPERS.
The PS3 is more than capable of smooth frame rates and sharp definition, in fact it's more powerful than the 360. What causes these issues is the way the game is developed for the platform, not due to any imagined 'faults' of the system.
09/01/09
I bought the PS3 but I don't dare to maintain any illusions about its power. Not after three years and not a single non-contestable specimen of cross-platform superiority (the opposite, in fact), never mind the unilaterally superior omnibus we should hypothetically have seen. Sometimes, a bigger price means nothing more than a shorter laser wavelength.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
This is typically why third-party manufacturers have a tougher time with the PS3; when developing a multi-console release, they typically begin with PC/Xbox 360 development because its what they're more familiar with, then port to PS3. Ever notice how the best looking games on the PS3 are the ones made by Sony's in-house first-party devlopers? That's because they know the architecture better, have access to more development tools, AND (this is the most important one), they don't have to worry about coding for any other system other than the PS3.
TL;DR: Sony first-party devs make the best looking games because they can afford to.
09/01/09
I belive this say's it all!
09/01/09
@CarlMarssilas:
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
(I still love it though! *hugs Saturn*)
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
(Looks at Devil May Cry 4, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, and Batman AA.....)
Platinum, You can't suck this hard when other companies have gotten it right.
09/01/09
Now I hear about this.
I'll probably just skip this whole fraking generation.
09/01/09
09/01/09
SEGA should get in contact.
09/01/09
09/01/09
Second of all, you should really consider what exclusives you are most interested in, before deciding on a console.
09/01/09
Yes, the PS3 is still as difficult as ever, and it was not necessarily ever going to be the case that simply time would alleviate that.
It's STILL HARD to run a marathon with your feet tied together? Yep...
It's better from the perspective of the PS3 version to port from PS3 to X360 if you're not concerned with making the best possible version of the game on the X360, and not trying to optimize for total project cost. Here's kind of how it works:
A.
Develop on PS3, port to X360:
1. PS3 version is consistently good
2. X360 version is consistently good
3. Development goes "PS3 speeds" which is inherently more difficult.
4. X360 version is not as good as it could be.
B.
Develop on X360, port to X360:
1. X360 version is consistently good
2. PS3 version is less good
3. Development goes at "X360 speeds" which is faster and less costly
4. PS3 version is not as good as it could be.
So, if you weigh the relative importance of PS3 vs. X360, which is not even because X360 has the much larger install base, the main differing factors is the #3 term of each, which is harder and slower development vs. faster and easier = cheaper.
You may objectively know that leading on PS3 will lead to a "smoother" development cycle for the PS3, but it doesn't mean that you can afford it!
09/01/09
i agree this is some bs. i look at all my games in my shelf, and i have played very good looking games on the system. (playing Batman AA too!)
for ghostbusters it was small fries, but for Bayonetta, this is just unacceptable. they better fix it or i'm not buying. ithat ssimple. 60 bucks does not grow on trees.
09/01/09
09/01/09
This decision was so much easier when I was a punk kid.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
Like I said, I do agree that changing the architecture every gen is a pain in the ass for devs, but the thing is, by working on different architectures, they learn valuable experience and even learn new techniques.
Also, the Cells architecture is very similar to the upcoming Larrabee. And if things are going the way they are, devs will be working on very similar architectures.
Before any of you guys get mad, yes, Larrabee is eons ahead of the cell, but the fact is they are both based on parallel architectures. It's just Larrabee actually has a sufficient front bus to support data transfer, etc.
09/01/09
Great wall of text.
Riddle me this genius. Why isn't a studio like Team Ninja having problems? Oh yes, they realize it's a different console and code the games accordingly. So if you're a developer and know that certain methods don't work well with a hardware, and still use them, who's to blame? The hardware manufacturer? Guess again.
At this stage of the console cycle, the only thing looking bad is the developer.
09/01/09
Sony has access to the best development tools and is willing to spend as much time required to polish its games. You cannot expect third-party developers to spend more time to handle an unwieldy system which typically sells less than its easier to develop competitors sell. That's hardly to say some third-parties cannot do just that, but Platinum Games likely has far fewer resources and time as a developer such as Capcom would have.
09/01/09
What's Platinum's excuse? What's Sega's excuse? I just played the demo for BatDude Arkam AssAssyum and it looks and runs great on Ps3. Downloaded the demo for Wet too and while not as impressive as BatBitch overall, it's good.
PS3 develop environment has been well publicized. If a developer can't get their shit together at this stage then they just suck. If this was a launch title then I would be more forgiving...actually...no I wouldn't because as short as it is, Heavenly Sword still looked fantastic and it's a first gen game.
"shakes fist" DAMN YOU SONY! WHY CAN'T WE GET A SEQUEL?! WHYYYYYYY!
09/01/09
09/01/09
Same reason why I waited to jump into this generation until I got an HDTV. I don't understand people who can settle to play games and throw away 75% of the artistic detail that graphic artists spent months on.
09/01/09