Devil May Cry 4 Going Multi-platform! (Xbox 360/PS3/PC) *Confirmed

[TheChefO]

I don't get it... when talking about multiplatform developers 360 vs PS3, who are these "A" teams you're refering to Chef?

AM2 v Sumo Digital for one.

I'm no insider but this was the word early on and it followed logical reasoning. At the planning stages of this gen, most figured ps3 would maintain the lead by a sizable margin. So in following this prediction, most put their best teams on the ps3 hardware.

Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?

Further proof: Frame city Killer: Namco

 

[Carl B]

Evidence suggesting otherwise? Uh, no, but I'm not the one making bold proclamations either.

AM2 vs Sumo Digital is a case of developer outsourcing; SEGA did what they did, and my take on it is... who cares about drama surrounding SEGA's development decisions? It's a new gen and SEGA's in-house dev efforts have been less than stellar thus far. Perhaps people want to say that AM2 is better than Sumo Digital - but, maybe they're not?

It's not much to make sweeping "Sony's gotten the 3rd party A-team" generalizations on.

(I don't even see how Frame City Killer relates at all to this, since it was an exclusive)

 

[TheChefO]

(I don't even see how Frame City Killer relates at all to this, since it was an exclusive)

I think that one was pretty obvious.



Ok so I don't have evidence that the broad statement is true to link to, just this one example (AM2 v SD) and no examples showing the opposite. So which is more likely given the circumstance as I pointed out?

Just for the sake of argument lets just turn a blind eye to the evidence we do have and the joke that was Namco support on xb360 via FCK and say they had equal dev support. How do you explain these shortcomings in multiplat games other than superior tools provide by MS and more available ram to play with?

 

[NERO]

AM2 vs Sumo Digital is a case of developer outsourcing; SEGA did what they did, and my take on it is... who cares about drama surrounding SEGA's development decisions? It's a new gen and SEGA's in-house dev efforts have been less than stellar thus far. Perhaps people want to say that AM2 is better than Sumo Digital - but, maybe they're not?

Yeah, what the hell is going on with Sega? Maybe it's for another thread but even Sonic Team is making glitchy games whichever platform they fall on. The New Sonic game...wtf!

As for Chef: I see you logic but it does not extend to everywhere else.

 

[Carl B]

Ok so I don't have evidence that the broad statement is true to link to, just this one example (AM2 v SD) and no examples showing the opposite. So which is more likely given the circumstance as I pointed out?

I think it's case by case - it makes sense that Japanese devs in general - and SEGA in this case specifically - would originally have favored a platform they expected to trump the 360 domestically. Capcom has bucked this trend, however, and has shown how an export-oriented model targeted towards 360's large install base can lead to great financial rewards. SEGA is on that game anyway though, and VF5 being exclusive previously was definitely the exception to their in-house rule.

We'll see what plays out with the other J-devs as time goes on.

I honestly was speaking more towards Western devs though, that I see very equal in their support of the consoles outside of 1st and 2nd parties, and even favoring 360 more often than not. Part of this is install base, part of this is tools, and part of this is the mania that is UE3 and its 360-firendliness (compared to PS3) until recently.

The J devs are obviously some of the most storied and important devs in the industry, but I don't think we can speak about devs in general when talking about their actions in particular, because they really do tend to be much more cautious in the way they approach things.

So, if we're speaking development at large, I think that it has favored the 360 to an extent, and if we're talking about Japanese devs, I agree that they defaulted to Sony at the beginning (with some exceptions), but that things are starting to shift towards increased 360 support.

By the way, I know absolutely zero about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 versions of VT3, so I'm not speaking to it; I imagine that they highlight 'the usual' subtle differences. In terms of online vs non-online play though, clearly MS' turnkey support for such has made a great different in this case, and is an example of the benefit that framework provides to their developers (and community). That SEGA hasn't been bothering with online at all for PS3 I will be honest and say I find disappointing.

 

[nelg]

This reminds me of ERP's hypothetical question here

Originally Posted by ERP
OK so hypothetically speaking.
I'm a multiplatform publisher, I'm behind on development, I decide that I'm going to re-allocate resources to the machine with 5+million installed and a better (and more stable) development environment to get the game out on time and let the other platform slip out a month or a quarter.

Again this isn't something I see/have seen happen, it's just something I was thinking about, how big a impact would it have?

It's doubtful that even if this type of resource shifting happened it would last beyond an initial period, but I wonder how much long term effect it would have in terms of perception of the platform

 

[TheChefO]

I think it's case by case - it makes sense that Japanese devs in general - and SEGA in this case specifically - would originally have favored a platform they expected to trump the 360 domestically. Capcom has bucked this trend, however, and has shown how an export-oriented model targeted towards 360's large install base can lead to great financial rewards. SEGA is on that game anyway though, and VF5 being exclusive previously was definitely the exception to their in-house rule.

We'll see what plays out with the other J-devs as time goes on.

I honestly was speaking more towards Western devs though, that I see very equal in their support of the consoles outside of 1st and 2nd parties, and even favoring 360 more often than not. Part of this is install base, part of this is tools, and part of this is the mania that is UE3 and its 360-firendliness (compared to PS3) until recently.

The J devs are obviously some of the most storied and important devs in the industry, but I don't think we can speak about devs in general when talking about their actions in particular, because they really do tend to be much more cautious in the way they approach things.

So, if we're speaking development at large, I think that it has favored the 360 to an extent, and if we're talking about Japanese devs, I agree that they defaulted to Sony at the beginning (with some exceptions), but that things are starting to shift towards increased 360 support.

By the way, I know absolutely zero about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 versions of VT3, so I'm not speaking to it; I imagine that they highlight 'the usual' subtle differences. In terms of online vs non-online play though, clearly MS' turnkey support for such has made a great different in this case, and is an example of the benefit that framework provides to their developers (and community). That SEGA hasn't been bothering with online at all for PS3 I will be honest and say I find disappointing.

I agree that currently many devs are using xb360 as the lead platform but why did this take place? Better Dev tools would seem to be the obvious answer and again I never said otherwise.

My original point was that Sony fans or "casuals" should not be upset or disapointed about getting a port of a xb360 game based solely on the origin of the game and nothing more. A subpar game is a subpar game no matter what system. And a great game is a great game no matter what system. To think that ps3 is inherently superior in all aspects and a port from xb360 is somehow an insult to the "POWA" that is ps3 is rediculous. That was my point.

Outside of this point, for PS3 fans to blame devs for ps3 ports underperforming is a bit short sighted. IMO

 

[Todd33]

Outside of this point, for PS3 fans to blame devs for ps3 ports underperforming is a bit short sighted. IMO

What kind of fans completely rules out the competency or speed of a port and suggest it's 100% the fault of the tools and hardware? I for one never suggested that the bad ports were due to the developers, I merely suggested it as real alternative to your baseless suggestions.

Is the converse true? What about the good ports, they must be due to the PS3 dev tools and hardware, right?

 

[TheChefO]

What kind of fans completely rules out the competency or speed of a port and suggest it's 100% the fault of the tools and hardware? I for one never suggested that the bad ports were due to the developers, I merely suggested it as real alternative to your baseless suggestions.

Is the converse true? What about the good ports, they must be due to the PS3 dev tools and hardware, right?

I would agree with you if ps3 were developed by Phillips and they slapped the label cd-i on the box and charged 6 bills for it. It isn't. It's getting the proper recognition and attention from top quality devs. These same devs (and lesser in some cases) are just able to get more out of xb360 in less time.

As has been proven, when given more time, devs have turned out good products in comparison. Counter to this is: why would a dev want to spend a lot of time to perfectly port their code to ps3 if ps3 gamers aren't buying and they could apply this time elsewhere which is more profitable?

ROI - Return on Investment.

 

[Todd33]

As has been proven, when given more time, devs have turned out good products in comparison. Counter to this is: why would a dev want to spend a lot of time to perfectly port their code to ps3 if ps3 gamers aren't buying and they could apply this time elsewhere which is more profitable?

ROI - Return on Investment.

Again, you have zero clue about the time and resources that went into any port, so stopping saying stuff like "has been proven". It could be true, but you don't have any evidence.


Chef's cliffs:
Bad ports = bad tools and hardware.
Good ports = Much time and pain overcoming bad tools and hardware.
Developing for a PS3 is a bad investment.

 

[AlNom]

I agree that currently many devs are using xb360 as the lead platform but why did this take place? Better Dev tools would seem to be the obvious answer and again I never said otherwise.

That might be one of the reasons, but it's probably more to do with the fact that it was out a year earlier. Just compare it to the situation between PS2 and Xbox. The Xbox probably had a lot better tools, but the PS2 was way ahead of the game in terms of market penetration; it didn't matter because there was already solid development on the PS2 for the majority.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Developing for a PS3 is a bad investment.

3rd party PS3 games are selling like shit in the US, obviously that impacts the amount of resources that will be dedicated for ports.

A very salient point, and it will remain so until the attach rate of PS3 increases drastically.

 

[Todd33]

3rd party PS3 games are selling like shit in the US, obviously that impacts the amount of resources that will be dedicated for ports.

A very salient point, and it will remain so until the attach rate of PS3 increases drastically.

PS3 attach rates are up to 3.6 (http://www.psu.com/node/9000). Around the same time the 360 was at 3.8 according to MS (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/9024.cfm). Now they are over 5, but all attach rates go up with time - that's just how it works.

I know reality is a lot less interesting but the bottom line is once you have factored out short scale launch data which include bundles and e-Bay selling, the attach rates of all the systems are statistically the same (assuming the same period of time), why shouldn't they be?

I know when I bought my systems I bought one game at the same time. Why throw away $60 when you can rent crappy launch titles?

 

[scooby_dooby]

PS3 attach rates are up to 3.6 (http://www.psu.com/node/9000). Around the same time the 360 was at 3.8 according to MS (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/9024.cfm). Now they are over 5, but all attach rates go up with time - that's just how it works.

I know reality is a lot less interesting but the bottom line is once you have factored out short scale launch data which include bundles and e-Bay selling, the attach rates of all the systems are statistically the same (assuming the same period of time), why shouldn't they be?

I know when I bought my systems I bought one game at the same time. Why throw away $60 when you can rent crappy launch titles?

Nice to see the attach rate is improving, but it seems to be completely dominated by 1st party.

I mean, just look at the sales list for Feb in the US. 3rd party 360 games were outselling their PS3 counterparts by 4:1 (MLB 2k7 for example), obviously that will negatively impact the quality of the ports quite a bit.

 

[Todd33]

Nice to see the attach rate is improving, but it seems to be completely dominated by 1st party.

Oiy...

I mean, just look at the sales list for Feb in the US. 3rd party 360 games were outselling their PS3 counterparts by 4:1 (MLB 2k7 for example)

Outselling normalized by the install base? You seem to think there is some magic going on, like PS3 owners are somehow genetically sub-human and can't possible be from the same demographic as the 360 owners. I'd love to here your theory on this.

The only rational explanation I can think of is that some people bought it as a Blu-ray player with little interest in games. This seems to be re-enforced (without raw numbers) by visiting the Blu-ray section of the AVSforums, a poll they did showed most Blu-ray owners bought a PS3, I suspect some are not gamers.

obviously that will negatively impact the quality of the ports quite a bit.

Boy, that sounds alot like what I was saying in response to Chef's anti-Sony tirade above. I offered the idea that the ports were quick and dirty for some quick cash. Didn't you mock that idea in this thread? No doubt the small install base during the launch made some devs take short cuts in time and manpower. Is that going to stay true? I doubt it, just look at Oblivion - it seems to be a fine port, they probably missed the launch to polish it.

 

[TheChefO]

That might be one of the reasons, but it's probably more to do with the fact that it was out a year earlier. Just compare it to the situation between PS2 and Xbox. The Xbox probably had a lot better tools, but the PS2 was way ahead of the game in terms of market penetration; it didn't matter because there was already solid development on the PS2 for the majority.

Perhaps there is some truth to this in certain instances but ps3 dev kits where out before xb360's and the kit itself was much closer to final HW to boot. The same cannot be said of the ps2-xb1 relationship.

 

[TheChefO]

Again, you have zero clue about the time and resources that went into any port, so stopping saying stuff like "has been proven". It could be true, but you don't have any evidence.


Chef's cliffs:
Bad ports = bad tools and hardware.
Good ports = Much time and pain overcoming bad tools and hardware.
Developing for a PS3 is a bad investment.

I didn't say "bad hardware".



I said, "less available ram" which is a fact. Whether you want to recognize it or not is your business.

"Bad tools" is a relative term. "Inferior compared to xb360" I think is more appropriate.

Developing for ps3 isn't a bad investment, if you can make money. When Sony improves their tools and their userbase, it will become a more potentially profitable investment. However, xb360 has proven to be a viable investment now and Wii seems to be hot on the heels. In fact when comparing dev time (time=$) Wii could be argued to be a better ROI than either console. FYI

 

[Todd33]

Perhaps there is some truth to this in certain instances but ps3 dev kits where out before xb360's and the kit itself was much closer to final HW to boot. The same cannot be said of the ps2-xb1 relationship.

360 G5 kits July 2005?
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/ar...th_vision.html

360 final dev kits, August 2005?
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/655/655273p2.html

Looks like the "PS3 Reference Tool" (Cell+RSX) went out in Dec 2005.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635630p1.html

Then summer 2006 - Final PS3 dev kit?
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/21/f...t-has-arrived/

It seems the dev kits were roughly staggered like the launches (maybe cause and effect!).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

360 G5 kits July 2005?
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/ar...th_vision.html

360 final dev kits, August 2005?
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/655/655273p2.html

Looks like the "PS3 Reference Tool" (Cell+RSX) went out in Dec 2005.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635630p1.html

Then summer 2006 - Final PS3 dev kit?
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/21/f...t-has-arrived/

It seems the dev kits were roughly staggered like the launches (maybe cause and effect!).

You forgetting that PS3 developers had Cell+7800GTX devkits back at E3 05 (or somewhere close). They had the Cell for fairly long actually, the difference in hardware between the PS3 devkits and the final kits is very small compared to the X360

 

[TheChefO]

You forgetting that PS3 developers had Cell+7800GTX devkits back at E3 05 (or somewhere close). They had the Cell for fairly long actually, the difference in hardware between the PS3 devkits and the final kits is very small compared to the X360

yep

I honestly thought e3 2006 was going to be the coming out party for ps3 and all that time behind the scenes with Cell+RSX+AAA internal dev teams (quite a large group FWIR) would yield considerably more than what was shown. Instead, I had this face: Especially after the price announcement.