The PS3 and multiplatform games, what's up with them?

[DonMartin]

I actually cant see why everyone is complaining about RDR on the ps3, I saw very very few glitches during my entire playthrough. Granted, multiplayer is a bit glitchier, but still, nothing you'd notice!


Also, the reason the xbox looks better in a lot of cases is because that is what they develop the game on. The Xbox has 3 cores, whereas the ps3 har 7. Naturally, its easier to "split" a game into 7 pieces than reducing 7 to 3. In the porting process, the game usually takes a hit, if care is not put into it.

 

[migo]

I actually cant see why everyone is complaining about RDR on the ps3, I saw very very few glitches during my entire playthrough. Granted, multiplayer is a bit glitchier, but still, nothing you'd notice!


Also, the reason the xbox looks better in a lot of cases is because that is what they develop the game on. The Xbox has 3 cores, whereas the ps3 har 7. Naturally, its easier to "split" a game into 7 pieces than reducing 7 to 3. In the porting process, the game usually takes a hit, if care is not put into it.

The PS3 has only one core, with 7 active SPEs, 6 of which can be used by a game.

 

[migo]

^ no you're wrong, on all counts, the ps3 is not the weaker system, the 360 is. This isnt about getting butthurt, its cold hard facts.

Cold hard facts is the Xenon is far superior to the RSX. It's simply capable of more. For the same file size, the graphic output of the 360 is better. The only way the PS3 catches up is when it uses uncompressed textures that take up a ton of space which wouldn't fit on a DVD-9. Give the 360 Blu-Ray and the PS3 would lose any chance of keeping up. As a whole the PS3 works very well as Blu-Ray allows for better looking graphics with less graphics processing power, and some graphics tasks can be offloaded to the Cell, but as far as brute graphics processing power goes the 360 is very clearly in the lead. Now if you just look at the CPU, with calculations like those used for Folding@home and the PS3 takes the lead, but this thread is about the graphics.

 

[Stickwell]

I am pretty big on the 360 being better that the ps3 (for my own reasons of oppinion)
But I gotta admit that this sucks... It should be equal on both ends for that quality of the games, as in they should commit more effort towards up porting to systems with better graphical capibilities.

 

[captaincabbage]

when dealing with x360 and ps3 crossplatform launches, you gotta take 1 key thing into consideration.

The games are developed primarily on the WEAKER system, where it uses the WEAKER system to it's fullest extent, and then it is ported to the more powerful system. Why? for obvious reasons, it's easy to port up, then to port down. Notice how PS3 exclusive titles look quite abit better than 360 exclusives. Thats becuase when compan ies are developing soley for the ps3 they have a lot more to work with, alot more space and a bit more power.

If we ever see a port of Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 to the 360 you can bet your ass they wont look as good.

What this guy said.
You get a complementary song.

lol yeah it's pretty much what the first guy said.

FUCKING LOVE THIS SONG

 

[captaincabbage]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

well someone gets it.

I swear if I hear another Valve employee whining about programming for the PS3 I'll kick them in the head. IT'S NOT THAT HARD THEY'RE JUST LAZY.

 

[Estarc]

I have seen screenshot comparisons of the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. The PS3 version is so much worse it is devastating. Since I have a PS3 and no Xbox -_-

I don't know why the PS3 version is so terrible. The developers fucked up is the only explanation that comes to mind. Given games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII and Heavy Rain, all great looking games on the PS3, it doesn't seem to be a problem with the console.

 

[squid5580]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

well someone gets it.

I swear if I hear another Valve employee whining about programming for the PS3 I'll kick them in the head. IT'S NOT THAT HARD THEY'RE JUST LAZY.

I don't see why it is "laziness". Developing games cost money. Developing 2 games will cost more money. Developing 1 game and then porting it over costs less money. Which means more profit.

 

[captaincabbage]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

well someone gets it.

I swear if I hear another Valve employee whining about programming for the PS3 I'll kick them in the head. IT'S NOT THAT HARD THEY'RE JUST LAZY.

I don't see why it is "laziness". Developing games cost money. Developing 2 games will cost more money. Developing 1 game and then porting it over costs less money. Which means more profit.

But thats exactly what they're complaining about. The cost of porting games to the PS3. Granted the PS3 is different to program with (I worked with it's internals for a number of years), but that's no excuse to ***** and moan about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Valve's games, but they just seem like cry babies is all. Especially when every other dev doesn't seem to have a problem with the PS3, I'm saying I wish they'd stop whinging and get back to making their games.

 

[squid5580]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

well someone gets it.

I swear if I hear another Valve employee whining about programming for the PS3 I'll kick them in the head. IT'S NOT THAT HARD THEY'RE JUST LAZY.

I don't see why it is "laziness". Developing games cost money. Developing 2 games will cost more money. Developing 1 game and then porting it over costs less money. Which means more profit.

But thats exactly what they're complaining about. The cost of porting games to the PS3. Granted the PS3 is different to program with (I worked with it's internals for a number of years), but that's no excuse to ***** and moan about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Valve's games, but they just seem like cry babies is all. Especially when every other dev doesn't seem to have a problem with the PS3, I'm saying I wish they'd stop whinging and get back to making their games.

Yes but they aren't crying about it because they are lazy. They are crying about it because they are greedy. More employees + training them how to do it right = less profits. Cheap ports + less employees = more profits.

And there appears to be alot of devs who struggle with it. Valve just manned up and said why instead of offering inferior ports and lying by silence.

 

[Cowabungaa]

le snip

Gee, that's quite an extensive explanation. Thanks, and that does explain a lot. So summarised, one can say that it's not so much the fact that the PS3's architecture is so alien, but more that developers just aren't willing to put the time and money in optimising the PS3 version of their game.

That's...well, a shame really. I doubt my PC can keep up for much longer (surprised it could run Mafia 2's demo so well) so I'll pretty much be forced to buy my games for the PS3.

I actually cant see why everyone is complaining about RDR on the ps3, I saw very very few glitches during my entire playthrough. Granted, multiplayer is a bit glitchier, but still, nothing you'd notice!

Weeeell... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sTonjFnE94]

But I wasn't talking about those glitches, I was just talking about some incredibly shit graphical things. Things like horses in the distance almost looking and moving like 8-bit models. That's just weaksauce.

All that I noticed about the PS3 demo of Mafia 2 was that the controls were absolute shit.

But that's most likely the fault of the game itself.

Noticed that too, until I changed the turning speed of the camera from Low to Medium. No idea why they set that on Low by default, because that does suck.

Apparently the mafia 2 devs don't know how to port games.

But it ain't just Mafia 2, sadly.

 

[captaincabbage]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

well someone gets it.

I swear if I hear another Valve employee whining about programming for the PS3 I'll kick them in the head. IT'S NOT THAT HARD THEY'RE JUST LAZY.

I don't see why it is "laziness". Developing games cost money. Developing 2 games will cost more money. Developing 1 game and then porting it over costs less money. Which means more profit.

But thats exactly what they're complaining about. The cost of porting games to the PS3. Granted the PS3 is different to program with (I worked with it's internals for a number of years), but that's no excuse to ***** and moan about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Valve's games, but they just seem like cry babies is all. Especially when every other dev doesn't seem to have a problem with the PS3, I'm saying I wish they'd stop whinging and get back to making their games.

Yes but they aren't crying about it because they are lazy. They are crying about it because they are greedy. More employees + training them how to do it right = less profits. Cheap ports + less employees = more profits.

And there appears to be alot of devs who struggle with it. Valve just manned up and said why instead of offering inferior ports and lying by silence.

Sure they may be greedy, who of us isn't? But I do think they're just being lazy. Instead of doing either (being lazy/greedy or making dodgy ports) why don't they spend some time actually putting effort into the ports?

I don't know how we got onto this argument about Valve, I was just taking a light-hearted stab at them in the first place.

 

[Cowabungaa]

There's one more thing I wondered about:

When playing the PS3 demo I'm pretty much assured that the full game will run just as well (or bad) as the demo. But can you also say that about the PC demo? That ran flawlessly, but does that mean the full game will too?

If not, then I'm going to think twice about swapping my pre-order from the PS3 to the PC. If the full game will run pretty much just as awesome, then I'm going to call the gameshop asap.

 

[Digital_Utopia]

As for the OP: You're halfway through a console's lifespan. When the PS1 launched 33MHz was rather standard for PCs, maybe 50MHz or 66MHz at the top. By 1998 you had 300MHz systems that could emulate the PS1. It was pretty similar for the PS2, although it hasn't been emulated yet. You're 5 years into the life of a console, any current PC will always look better, but if you try throwing together a $300 PC it won't even come close.

True, but the beauty of upgrading a PC is that you don't have to start from scratch each time, and considering that a PS3 retailed for what? $500 when it came out, it's more than possible to upgrade to an adequate gaming PC for $400-$500, and that's if you have to replace everything (i.e. RAM, GPU, CPU, mobo). Then throw in the fact that console games tend to run $10 more than their PC counterparts, and the difference is further reduced.

The only thing that PC gaming isn't very good for is couch play and same system multi-player - everything else it can meet or exceed consoles. So if you have a bunch of friends coming over for a party game, or like the people you're playing with/against to be sitting next to you on the sofa - then a console is your choice. Otherwise, well...you're going to be better off with a PC.

 

[sephiroth1991]

I find ports on PS3 are usually down in quality due to them be devloped on another console or system they uses diffrent functions, it's not about the PS3 being superior or inferior it's just it uses a diffrent processor etc.

 

[jamesworkshop]

le snip

Gee, that's quite an extensive explanation. Thanks, and that does explain a lot. So summarised, one can say that it's not so much the fact that the PS3's architecture is so alien, but more that developers just aren't willing to put the time and money in optimising the PS3 version of their game.

It's not soo much that they are unwilling developers have very little control, games are finished when the publisher says they are finished a game still in development is not making any money so you do need a finished product as soon as you can.

The simple fact is the PS3 is not optimal for developers because it takes too long to even get the game running let alone making a version that should be better than the 360 version they would have finished months before and cannot release because marketing costs cannot strech to run two seperate ad campagins months apart and so both are delayed so both can share marketing at release.


The ultimate problem is that in the big 3 Sony are stuck with both 360 and Wii having the dominate market possition to the point where the majority of development have to marginalise the PS3 when making a cross-platfrom title, longer development cycles never benefit developers

The requirements of being a business hold more sway than the ins and outs of technology

 

[Googenstien]

If you just buy the game on the PS3/PC/Xbox and dont kill yourself trying to find differences between all the versions you are fine. Just play the game! I bought Dragon Age on the PS3 even tho its the lowest rated (barely) of the 3 systems its on. Why?? First I dont own a 360 and on the PC I tend to look for mods and cheats on a game like that and it ruins the game for me, but on the PS3 I played Dragon Age 3x from start to end with 3 different characters and in comfort on my 55" TV and nice comfy couch.

Also, as time is going on the PS3 is slowly overtaking the other 2 in sales and use because of its price drop and how much more it offers, once people have gottten down how to program on a Cell Proc for the PS3 they can make some amazing games on it - but when it comes down to it a Xbox 360 or PS3 is still about a 4 year old PC in terms of overall power.

 

[squid5580]

Programing for the PS3 is different than programming for the PC and Xbox 360, and therefore most games are made for the PC or Xbox 360 first, and then ported over to the PS3. The games aren't optimized to run on the PS3, and therefore don't look as good as if they had been optimized.

That's the reason I pretty much only by PS3 exclusives on the PS3. Everything else runs just as good or better on the PC or Xbox 360.

well someone gets it.

I swear if I hear another Valve employee whining about programming for the PS3 I'll kick them in the head. IT'S NOT THAT HARD THEY'RE JUST LAZY.

I don't see why it is "laziness". Developing games cost money. Developing 2 games will cost more money. Developing 1 game and then porting it over costs less money. Which means more profit.

But thats exactly what they're complaining about. The cost of porting games to the PS3. Granted the PS3 is different to program with (I worked with it's internals for a number of years), but that's no excuse to ***** and moan about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Valve's games, but they just seem like cry babies is all. Especially when every other dev doesn't seem to have a problem with the PS3, I'm saying I wish they'd stop whinging and get back to making their games.

Yes but they aren't crying about it because they are lazy. They are crying about it because they are greedy. More employees + training them how to do it right = less profits. Cheap ports + less employees = more profits.

And there appears to be alot of devs who struggle with it. Valve just manned up and said why instead of offering inferior ports and lying by silence.

Sure they may be greedy, who of us isn't? But I do think they're just being lazy. Instead of doing either (being lazy/greedy or making dodgy ports) why don't they spend some time actually putting effort into the ports?

I don't know how we got onto this argument about Valve, I was just taking a light-hearted stab at them in the first place.

It isn't about Valve. Valve is just the only one who has admitted they don't know what to do with the PS3. Everyone else just puts out dodgy ports and doesn't say a word.