IF you take some more time to read his comment you would notice he said usually!
Deviations exists.
Ok, I will also say: "usually the development cycle is about 5 years", so what?
Console Performance - Now or Later
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
- Status
Ok, I will also say: "usually the development cycle is about 5 years", so what?
Then you would have to correct it to, "usually the development cycle is about ~2-3 years but sometimes ~5 years".
You know, there is a subtle difference between what people say and what they do.
I'll stick with the latter, because the former is so unreliable.
I'd say you're wrong. If its taking that long to develop its probably because there were interruptions in the cycle, finding new funding, moving to a new platform etc. I think you'd be hard pressed to find cases where developers have been constantly inputting code towards a single product for more than 3 years.
Well if you're just going to think you're right and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, there's really no point in talking to you.
Here is a few hundred (take away anything not developed by EA themselves).
Im not going to spend 2-3 hours to post 1000 games just to shut up somebody i know is wrong to begin with.
There is a very easy explanation for that, they made other games meanwhile.
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (2002) <- UBISOFT MONTREAL
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (2004) Ubisoft Shanghai
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (2005) <- UBISOFT MONTREAL
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Essentials (2006) <- UBISOFT MONTREAL
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent (2006) Ubisoft Shanghai (next-gen)/Ubisoft Montreal (current-gen)
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction (2008) <- UBISOFT MONTREAL
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time November 4, 2003 <- UBISOFT MONTREAL
Prince of Persia: Warrior Within December 2, 2004
Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones December 1, 2005 <- UBISOFT MONTREAL
Prince of Persia: Revelations December 6, 2005
Battles of Prince of Persia December 7, 2005
Prince of Persia: Rival Swords March 20, 2007
Ubisoft montreal is btw a huge team, they are releasing Assassins Creed within a few months, and SC:Conviction within 6 months.
More examples of Ubisoft games?
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2001 <- Redstorm
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Desert Siege 2003 <- Red Storm
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Island Thunder 2003
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Jungle Storm 2004
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 2004 <- Red storm
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2: Summit Strike 2005 Xbox <- Red storm
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 <- Red storm \ Ubi Paris (multi\campaign)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 2007 <- Red storm \ Ubi Paris (multi\campaign)
Don't make me bring out EA games, thats gonna make your argument look extremely bad, EA games is the biggest publisher in the world, and also the most notrious one for rushing out titles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, you're incorrectly considering those quotes in terms of the current situation. The thing is that at the time those quotes were made Sony were trying to counter the negative PR being caused by poor performing, delayed and even canceled multiplatform releases. Clearly they were not in a position to be saying, "If you think PS3 is looking good now...."
Those quotes were PR spin at its best (or worst depending on how you look at it).
I have a similar perspective. I buy devices based on the value it provides for me at the time I purchase it while considering any limitations it has that are (or even may become) problems during the period of time I will be using it.
It makes zero sense to me to buy something on potential value when that item is guaranteed to both decrease in price and increase in value over time. Better to wait until the point that those streams cross.
Best post yet. I agree 100%.
For me as consoles age and fall very far behind PC in terms of quality, my puchase rate for software goes down considerably and I wait for the next best thing while playing on the PC in the mean time.
Last edited by a moderator:
And do you state that all these games are made by one team? And the dev cycles were strictly sequential?
Did you mean: other people in Ubi Montreal made other games meanwhile? Because as far as I know only sound and music production were made by the same people in Sands of Time and Chaos Theory.
The development time for consoles is not usually 5 years. That's preposterous! That'd mean each developer would get one, maybe two games a generation. They'd create a first title learning the ropes of the machine, and then have to move on. The better titles can take 3 years of development (counting from the time they're actually working on a project rather than the time they penciled the original idea on the back of an envelope). You can get titles taking longer, which often involve the company creating their own engine. If you're buying in someone else's middleware you won't take so long. After the initial title, lots of games take a shorter time. Some are rushed at 1 year like EA's perennials. Many sequels take only two.
Here's an example developer, Snowblind Studios, who work on one title at a time.
Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance was released Dec 2001.
CON released Feb 2004 (3 years rebuilding their engine)
CON:RTA released Feb 2005 (1 year)
JLH released Oct 2006 (18 months)
Here's the output from Insomniac (from ever reliable Wiki)
Game Title US Release Date Platform
Disruptor November 20, 1996 PlayStationSpyro the Dragon September 10, 1998Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage November 2, 1999Spyro: Year of the Dragon October 11, 2000Ratchet & Clank November 7, 2002PlayStation 2 Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando November 11, 2003Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal November 2, 2004
Ratchet: Deadlocked October 25, 2005Resistance: Fall of Man November 14, 2006PlayStation 3 Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction October 23, 2007Resistance: Fall of Man Sequel TBA 2008
And they're talking about a title every year, alternating between R:FoM and RnC. That's 2 years per title.
Rather than taking a few titles known for their long development (why not add Spore into your average as well?), apply a little sense, please! How long do you think Barbie's Horse Adventures was in development?! 5 years development per title, more than pretty much any movie or book, is not economically viable.
Here's an example developer, Snowblind Studios, who work on one title at a time.
Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance was released Dec 2001.
CON released Feb 2004 (3 years rebuilding their engine)
CON:RTA released Feb 2005 (1 year)
JLH released Oct 2006 (18 months)
Here's the output from Insomniac (from ever reliable Wiki
)Game Title US Release Date Platform
Disruptor November 20, 1996 PlayStationSpyro the Dragon September 10, 1998Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage November 2, 1999Spyro: Year of the Dragon October 11, 2000Ratchet & Clank November 7, 2002PlayStation 2 Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando November 11, 2003Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal November 2, 2004
Ratchet: Deadlocked October 25, 2005Resistance: Fall of Man November 14, 2006PlayStation 3 Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction October 23, 2007Resistance: Fall of Man Sequel TBA 2008
And they're talking about a title every year, alternating between R:FoM and RnC. That's 2 years per title.
Rather than taking a few titles known for their long development (why not add Spore into your average as well?), apply a little sense, please! How long do you think Barbie's Horse Adventures was in development?! 5 years development per title, more than pretty much any movie or book, is not economically viable.
I don't care if a console has much or little unexploited processing power left. Quality of games is the most important thing and quality of a game is not determined by how hard it pushes system it's running on. Jak & Daxter was one of the best platform games I've played, and while main character in Jak 2 had supposedly 2,5 more polygons it's one of the worst games I've played and it was absolute stinker.
Although better graphics and other stuff like physics is definitely a huge plus, the thing that's most important is game design and I would like to see it evolving the most and making the biggest strides in upcoming years.
Although better graphics and other stuff like physics is definitely a huge plus, the thing that's most important is game design and I would like to see it evolving the most and making the biggest strides in upcoming years.
If killzone 2, GT5, and RC TOD ,are not even close to reaching ps3 potential then i cant wait to see what the future brings
ps3 has games that are looking better than anything right now, and its not even close to maxing the machine out yet we still have a 4 to 5 years for ps3 to continuely improve as devs the gasp of the hardware
and this is bad how exactly ?
ps3 has games that are looking better than anything right now, and its not even close to maxing the machine out yet we still have a 4 to 5 years for ps3 to continuely improve as devs the gasp of the hardware
and this is bad how exactly ?
If killzone 2, GT5, and RC TOD ,are not even close to reaching ps3 potential then i cant wait to see what the future brings
A lot of that is PR. Well, all of it is, really.
There will be improvement, but not the X fold that you think you will see. When some PR guy says, hey we are only using 10% of the PS3's potential, thats a straightforward lie.
The GPU on the PS3 is G71. A well known, straight forward architecture. Doesn't take a lot of coding to figure out what you can do, and what you cannot do with a G71. And the GPU is the main, most vital source that provides the graphics. The RAM is the same, we are not gonna get more space for textures through magic..
Its not like we are going to see something on the PS3 3 years from now that still competes with PC graphics. With the Cell used to leverage the RSX, it will eventually\hopefully\potentially show games that look better than what the X360 can do.
The difference between the two is going to be tiny. I doubt any casual would see the technical differences straight away. Not only that, but the main differensiating factor with graphics, that makes up for allmost any hardware advantage, is ART.
GT:HD looks better than Forza 2 because Polyphony digital are brilliant artists, who really know how the nail the lighting and color scheme. GT4 imo, looks better than any racing game on the Xbox (i haven't played that rally game everybody has a hard on for), and the Xbox was a lot more powerful than the PS3. ART is the biggest difference your going to see with graphics this gen.
PGR2 was technically superior to GT4 in every way, higher polycounts, better textures, etc etc, but it looked goddamn awful next to it. Because of ART.
The point many people here has made is that right now, the PS3 does not have games looking better than anything else out there. They look pretty much the same. And multiplatform games in general look\perform worse.
The topic creators point in this discussion, was about if its worth it to pay a high premium for a console, that will show its peak and eventually surpass the competition to the end of its lifetime (4-5 years from now your going to be drooling over a PS4\X720 or a Wii2).
Or if it was better to have the advantage right now? At a cheaper, more affordable price.
The PS3 potential thing, can easily be turned into bad, because your paying more for something that may end up only being the "better" console to own for a very limited time:
Lets rewind a year ago. You had two choices (not counting the wii). Buy $600 PS3 with less games and worse graphics or a $400 X360 with more games, and better graphics. Not only that, but you could have bought the same $400 X360 a full year earlier.
Now, a year later, multiplatform games in general still have the best performance on the X360, and the graphical differences is virtually non-existant for released titles.
Lets say we go another year, and it all evens out on the multiplayer side, both system has plenty of games, multiplatform runs about the same in general.
Another year, PS3 finally starts showing its power. The X360 you could have bought in 2005 (well not the same x360, as you probably got the RRoD and exchanged it to the falcon with the warranty), has lasted you 4 years, and you can now see some PS3 games out there that are better. One more year, and the Xbox 2\whatever launches. Not only that, but because of PS3 price, the userbase might never get big enough to warrant enough big budget titles that pushes PS3 developing forward, meaning you will never see any significant differences..
What gave you best value for money in your opinion? Thats what this topic is about, nobody is saying that games getting better is a bad thing.
Is this your opinion or are you asserting this as fact? and are you saying the games are better or just look better and is this based on current or future content?
Bad is also a matter of opinion, but one could argue that as a early PS3 adopter, you paid for a system which isn't delivering on its capabilities. Like buying a sports car which has a limiter on it, keeping it from going as fast as it could even though you paid for components which should allow it to go much faster. Then one day someone comes by and takes the limiter off to make you feel like you got a new car.
The above posts is very true, I agree. The thing is that sometimes you just want performance for the longest time you can have. However, I don't doubt Sony will release PS4 in 6 years. C'mon, does anybody really think PS3 can last 10 years? Xbox 720 or whatever, in my prediction, ok so the Xbox launched in 2001, 360 4 years later in 2005. Let's say 360 is doing great so give them two extra years. So, the next xbox will launch in 2011. The PS3, at the most, will last only 7 years up until PS4 launches, which is not very far away from the next xbox and most likely will over better performance from the start AND in the future since it's being developed longer. Let's say this PS4 launches around 2013--2014. If this PS4 is much more powerful than the next xbox, people are going to wait for it. In Japan, I don't doubt this as we all know how popular the xbox is *wink* However, I really think the Playstation should not be that far behind the next xbox's launch because Sony would've lost a lot more market share than this gen with the 360 pulling a year ahead. Most likely though, the PS4 will be unlocked in its early life cycle and have a bit of power still uptapped for the future because it will most likely use some form of CELL BE and RSX (G150s?). I seriously think Sony is in a good position here, launching something after Microsoft that offers a greater future proofing capability and offers maybe even better performance at the start because devs are already familiar with the CELL architecture...and RSX, well it's based on Nvidia so that wouldn't be a problem. The main thing about PS3 is that it uses a CPU that is very different and hard to program for. However, if PS4 uses the same thing just beefed up to the max, devs won't find it challenging anymore to crank out power and games will already look better than xbox 720 at the time when it's released. Nonetheless, these are just my speculations, maybe PS4 will launch with xbox 720 and offers just the same performance and at similar price range.
Bad analogy imo. More like, your paying an entry fee to be first in line to the Mall. Which, depending on how many people will pay this entry fee, may have some good deals sometime in the future.
Oh and my car had the 155mph\250kmh german limit for a good while. When it got taken it off, it didn't feel like i got a new car.
Lol, the fastest production car (this can be arguable), the Bugatti Veyron has limited to 406km/h, it can a little faster than this if the tires can handle it. Also, it is limited to lower than this limit when u disabled the sports mode or whatever. Either way, Sony is in a good position here. Home and all the great games are coming this Fall, and PS3's games don't look that bad comparing to the 360. And also the promise of suprassing the 360 in the future, will give gamers a peace of mind (well PS3 owners like I am). Also, the PS4 will be much easier to develop for because most likely it will use cell and some nvidia custom gpu based on the GeForces.
Historically, the market has never really cared about what is much more powerful.
The xbox was much more powerful, it was marketed as much more powerful. Nobody cared.
The Wii is much weaker than both the X360 and the PS3, nobody cares.
Few people will wait just for the sake of something "more powerful" in the future, unless its right around the corner.
Nobody that wants a console right now will wait 2-3 years just for the sake of getting a more powerful console.
And its not like the PS3 will be able to compete with the Xbox 720 graphically.
It will look old and seriously outdated just like the Wii does compared to current consoles.
Alot of people seems to talk about future proofing capability. Which is IMO a complete BS argument.
Whatever untapped power is there, is irrelevant in terms of futureproofing. Nex-gen consoles will be 4-6x more powerful than what we have now, raw power alone will make up for whatever familiarities devs have with the PS3 in 6-10 years.
Its impossible to futureproof a console. Technology evolves far to quickly. Once the next-generation kicks in, it will be outdated and ugly in comparison.
That is true, well, it really depends on how fast technology move. Right now, technology is moving at light speed. I think the best thing for Sony to do now is crank out the power asap before the xbox 720 comes around and kicks its butt. However, I do not think xbox 720 will be around soon. Xbox 360 still has at least 4 more years left in it before it getting replaced. And by that time, by two years, PS3 games will be more or less much better than 360 already.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
