The word 'port' is a huge negative for the gaming community. The instant they know something is a port they start looking for what is wrong with it, even if the differences are minute and don't effect gameplay.
Cross platform development and choice of 'Lead system' *Spinoff*
- Thread starter iceberg187
- Start date
The word 'port' is a huge negative for the gaming community. The instant they know something is a port they start looking for what is wrong with it, even if the differences are minute and don't effect gameplay.
Well, to put it in simple speak, they idea was generally that you get rather bad performance with 'old-style' PPE dependent code on the PS3, while you get excellent performance using more data-centric, SPE style coding on the PS3. Vice versa, you get reasonable performance using 'old-style' PPE programming on the 360, but very good performance using more data centric (streaming/VMX, etc.) style coding on the 360. So it's a win for both platforms.
That's how I understand it, anyway: if you lead on the PS3, and you get good performance on it, then that investment will pay off on the 360. If you lead on the 360, and you get decent performance there, you may still have to rewrite large chuncks of your code before you get even just a similarly decent performance on the PS3. So, leading on PS3 will force you into good coding practices, basically.
We'll see when the game is release whether the X360 version suffers from being a port or not.
If it doesn't, the only reason to oppose this would be from people who want to see the PS3 kept down.
It may not be up to the discretion of developers in the future anyways. MS or Sony could now probably bribe publishers on how they develop multiplatform games. May not cost as much as getting any kind of exclusives but might have almost the same effect.
If it doesn't, the only reason to oppose this would be from people who want to see the PS3 kept down.
It may not be up to the discretion of developers in the future anyways. MS or Sony could now probably bribe publishers on how they develop multiplatform games. May not cost as much as getting any kind of exclusives but might have almost the same effect.
MazingerDUDE
Regular
If I look at the most recent example, say Burn out vs NFS Pro Street,
Burn out shines on both platforms and either version just blows supposedly the best version (which of course is 360) of NFS away.
Burn out runs at twice the frame rate with prettier visual.
I'm a believer now
I was going to say you cannot use an EA game as a comparison, but then I remembered Burnout is EA now too
Need for Speed has been quite bad for a while now in my opinion, they need to stop doing one every year and really put some work into (as you say Burnout is not only 60fps as opposed to occasionally hitting 30 it's also considerably better looking too) it but I guess that's what EA do.
Need for Speed has been quite bad for a while now in my opinion, they need to stop doing one every year and really put some work into (as you say Burnout is not only 60fps as opposed to occasionally hitting 30
it's also considerably better looking too) it but I guess that's what EA do.Okay, maybe it's my limited understanding in games development on console, however I don't think it's that much different then writing applications and web applications.
Why can't they develop the game with 360 as lead and keep in mind they needs some design pattern for running multitude small code package. Much is the same why that if they're developing for PS3 as lead, they wouldn't fully used up the Bluray disc and have to take into account of DVD on the 360.
In another word, I don't buy the idea that developing for PS3 as lead platform will not impact on what 360 can potential do. If the 360 can match what PS3 can do as a lead platform, then maybe there's something more to it. And I don't think the argument that they just clamp down the PS3 so the 360 can do the same. Because in the reverse role, we have seen the result.
The reason they led on the PS3 has to do with the history they have with Sony. That is the main reason why they led on the PS3. I have to find the interview but it wasn't that long after the demo was released when asked the question why the PS3 was the lead sku.
That's just it, we'll never know. It may run identically to the PS3 version. That means its an awesome port and Criterion did a great port job, which looks to be the case. It does not mean that they got maximum use of the platform though. For example, what did they do with the extra ~50mb of memory, is it unused? How did they take advantage of edram, or did they ignore it? We're the achievements thought through during the course of the project, or just thrown together during the "porting" phase? We'll never know. Of course the reverse applies as well when doing 360->PS3 ports. Was the space on the blu-ray used or is it wasted? Is the standard harddrive used to cache data to speed load time or is it unused? Etc, etc... Why does it even matter? See the next part...
Believe me, unlike forums where bias, fan-boyism, prejudice, etc, run wild, for the game studios its all about boring spreadsheets and maximizing return, nothing more.
So why would a studio oppose leading on PS3 and porting to 360? By definition "port" means just get the same thing working as best you can. The advantages of the platform are typically not leveraged, or perhaps not used as well as they could be. Due to the nature of the business and its high costs, more often than not you must port. So, which platform should receive the luxury treatment, and which should receive the port? They don't ask msfanboy55 or sonyrules23 what they think, they look at the numbers. At the moment, 360 leads in installed base and has a much larger attach rate. Given that, you would have a very hard time convincing the higher ups to give the PS3 version the luxury treatment unless you are being bankrolled by Sony in some way. That's just the hard numeric facts of it at the moment. Given those numbers, you want to blow away the 360 user base as much as you can with the best version possible so you can leverage its 7.0 attach rate. You also want to lead with the 360 because your competitors may be 360 only and hence by default are leading with the 360. You don't want to fall short when compared to them because you chose to port the 360 version.
All of this only applies with the current userbase/attach numbers. If those change and say they became the same in a year or so, then different rules apply. In that case I prefer Infinity Wards way where you have two parallel teams. Theres many reasons why, some of which are that this way the majority of the company is familiar with both main platforms, you can catch any platform specific issue that crop up during the course of development instead of being swamped by them during the port phase, and you even create friendly rivalries between the two teams which can lead to improved results on both platforms.
How realistic is IW's approach though?
Do multiplatform games in general have the budget to support presumably more resources (more people from two teams instead of a main team and a few people to do the port)?
And maybe this is a problem specific to Western developers who don't expect their game to sell well in Japan (where PS3 has a bigger installed base) or continental Europe (where PS3 appears to be doing better against X360 than in other regions).
Also your argument about userbase/attach rates can be turned around another way. Maybe with a higher userbase/attach ratio, the X360 market isn't as sensitive to perceived technical inferiority.
For instance, if news about Halo3's resolution was widely propagated, would it affect its sales at all? Or that of a sequel? If a "Halo killer" came out with with better graphics metrics (higher resolution, higher frame rate, more AA, etc), would Halo4's sales be affected?
Maybe the X360's high attach ratios suggest the X360 userbase isn't as sensitive to "ports" because multiplatform games have sold well, better than most exclusives.
Maybe they could maintain current attach ratios on the X360 while improved PS3 ports would boost sales of the PS3 version, which would mean greater overall sales for the publisher/developers.
Do multiplatform games in general have the budget to support presumably more resources (more people from two teams instead of a main team and a few people to do the port)?
And maybe this is a problem specific to Western developers who don't expect their game to sell well in Japan (where PS3 has a bigger installed base) or continental Europe (where PS3 appears to be doing better against X360 than in other regions).
Also your argument about userbase/attach rates can be turned around another way. Maybe with a higher userbase/attach ratio, the X360 market isn't as sensitive to perceived technical inferiority.
For instance, if news about Halo3's resolution was widely propagated, would it affect its sales at all? Or that of a sequel? If a "Halo killer" came out with with better graphics metrics (higher resolution, higher frame rate, more AA, etc), would Halo4's sales be affected?
Maybe the X360's high attach ratios suggest the X360 userbase isn't as sensitive to "ports" because multiplatform games have sold well, better than most exclusives.
Maybe they could maintain current attach ratios on the X360 while improved PS3 ports would boost sales of the PS3 version, which would mean greater overall sales for the publisher/developers.
Hmm, a very good and valid point!
However, when you're dealing with budget in the millions and 1 - 2 years development cycle, you don't want to take any risk, hence you see a lot of sequels.
You also want to minimize blocking tasks. If the assumption is the PS3 is a little harder to develop than 360, then do you want the PS3 to be lead and possibly hold up a 360 release? Yeah, that's a big assumption...and I'm not sure it's not that much harder, but from a risk management you want to look at that think twice.
One factor to have PS3 as lead is resources. If they have PS2 developers ready for their project, they could jump start that project as oppose to retrain/retool to work on the 360.
Probably not very realistic alas, but it's still my preferred approach. Most will still just do ports. Ports aren't risk free though. What happens if the core people on the small port team decide to leave the company at a critical time? That can cost a company a small fortune due to assorted fines from a missed deadline, etc. So while the parallel team version costs more, to me it's safer and will ultimately produce better results. I doubt we will see that approach very much though
It depends more on the target market for a given title rather than where its developed. If Capcom were making a game with the US market in mind, then it makes sense for them to lead on the 360. If a US developer were making a title with the Japanese market as the intended audience, then 360 as the lead makes little sense.
Halo is not really a good example to use because its become more of a phenomenon than a game. I don't even think it's possible to make a Halo 'killer' anymore, that franchise has somehow attained god like status. Take Assasins Creed though, another AAA title. What if there were another game just like it, that was basically the same game but ran at a solid 30fps, loaded faster, and just in general ran a little bit better because it was tuned as a single platform title or because they happened to chose your console as their lead platform. Assuming you liked that type of game to begin with, which version would you buy? Assasins Creed, which was very nicely ported to your platform, or this other Assasins Creed type game that is not significantly better, but its just overall a bit more polished. Which would you buy? Therein lies the risk of choosing the 'port' option on the 360 platform especially in a market cluttered with so many good games. What happens if your brilliantly ported 360 version is just a bit less polished than someone elses similar 360 lead platform title? A game does not need to be 50% better than yours for people to pass yours up. All it takes a just a bit more polish, then word of mouth does the rest of the damage.
I'll edit my post and ad one more example. Burnout can partly get away with leading on PS3 because there isn't any other game really quite like it. But lets say there was. What if you're a 360 owner and Burnout just came out. It's a great port of a PS3 game. But theres this other game that also just came out, just like Burnout, but 360 was it's lead platform. Like the previous example it's not significantly better than Burnout, but it's just a bit more polished all around. So I'd ask 360 owners that are also Burnout fans, which game would you buy?
I think it's high attach ratio is because the machine has so many damn good games really. I don't play anywhere near as much as I used to, yet so far I've bought more 360 games in one year than any other console in recent history. They hit on all cylinders this year when it comes to filling the channel with awesome games.
PS3 ports will improve one way or the other. It's userbase will only go up, which increases the amount of money the bigwigs are willing to risk on it. I don't think most are willing to risk the 360 version of the game at the moment, even if it means a better PS3 version.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the result speaks for itself, a pretty amazing game at 60hz in full 720p on BOTH platforms. We know how it often goes when it´s 360 game that is tweaked to the PS3
Ok, I am not sure if that is an rhetorical question or not, but I'll answer anyway.
Emulating means that you're simulating the underlying hardware, i.e. you're making the code think it runs on the intended hardware.
Porting means you're adapting the code base to fit a different hardware. This requires a large amount of changes in the source code.
There's a huge gap in performance between those two.
Didn't one publisher state a while ago that it doesn't matter which way you do it, the end result will mean the same outlay?
I think they said although the PS3 version will be more expensive to create from the start, the cost of porting it to 360 would result in roughly the same cost as creating it on 360 then porting it to PS3.
I think the point is that a PS3 => Xbox360 approach gives them better results, cheaper and easier porting process and likely more sales with both version combined, than a better Xbox360 game and a worse, more challenging PS3 port that most likely will end up selling less.
What they are doing makes perfect sense - a better more efficient Xbox "lead version" wouldn't sell much better after all, as the series sells especially on the name and gameplay elements alone.
Thanks for answering the question.
Can a port ever be 1:1 with the original? It just seems like theres always going to be a loss somewhere unless u can totally emulate the target system the code was designed 4.
Burnout is 720p 2xAA on 360 , they need to use the EDRAM. And if I remember well, the 360 Os memory footprint is 32 mb on and the last time I saw some information about the PS3 OS memory footprint it was 72 mb (48 mb main memory and 24 mb VRAM), the difference is only of 40mb.
Article about PS3 sdk 1.8
http://www.innerbits.com/blog/2007/08/21/ps3-180-sdk/
Maybe the memory footprint of the PS3 OS have decreased since the sdk 1.8.
EDIT: Is it bloom or HDR for Burnout 5?
Last edited by a moderator:
