*Game Development Issues*

does the PS3 versions really have a 24 player limit online vs the 360's 18? i thought both were "up to 18"?

 

Try the COD4 thread - http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=40887. It's a long one of course... a screenshot is quoted and discussed at http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1090506&highlight=comparison#post1090506. Like I said, it's very minor, but it seems funny to hear the game's creator saying that it's "clear the PS3 is superior".

Good question - anyone with both should confirm.

 

If he said that I need "cyborg-eyes" to notice it then he implied nothing about being "clear"

 

One of the developers that frequents neogaf said the PS3 has higher res textures for CoD4. He didn't mention much else. That was months before the game was even released.

Also game is 16 players on both systems for all game modes except for one which supports 18 on both systems.

 

That wasn't the developer, that was Gamesrader. Calen, an Infinity Ward employee swears up and down they are the same. Calen is his name on GAF.

 

I am sure there are pluses and minuses for each... lots of the initial analysis of screenshots showed the 360 looking more detailed, however a lot has to be said for the improved AF on PS3 making distances look nicer.

But surely MS would be getting a little pissed being publicly called the inferior version by the studio head? This is my main question... it's a bizarre situation.

 

Besides, now that every other shooter on the PS3 has been delayed into oblivion (UT3, Haze) or bashed by reviewers (Orange Box, Timeshift, Haze again), they are pretty much the only game in town for PS3 shooters this holiday season.

1up on Orange Box PS3:

You may begin the chorus of "lazy developers" and "EA sucks" right ... now.

 

As others pointed to, the CoD4 thread has some pictures. Shadows and texture resolution, regardless of what the GAF poster's protests, are differences. And I have been contacted about the 60fps marketing (which I had referenced in an earlier post) from IW and that both versions aren't always at 60fps, with the PS3 version dropping lower, more frequently, than the 360 version.

Overall it is kind of besides the point really. CoD4 on the PS3 is a really good game and for all practical points and purposes is pretty much the same.


On another tangent, I am curious at potential backlash towards a couple dev houses using the PS3 as the lead SKU for upcoming games. If market trends continue in the US the 360 will become the dominant platform for next gen games. If developers choose to use the PS3 as the lead SKU because of the PS3's architecture and get "great" and get "ok" performance out of the 360, and focus on techniques that work best on the PS3, but not so great on the 360 (see: certain comments about Xenos above for example), so you end up with the superior version of a game on the PS3 (smaller market), yet a real possibility of the 360 (larger market) version falling behind related to products that went 360 lead SKU route.

In general I don't think consumers like buying products that are inferior. While you could point to the PS2 as a counterexample, I think this is currently one of the problems the PS3 had and the GCN was a victim of such at times as well.

I guess it really depends on whether it is true multiplatform development where techniques and design are chosen based on mutual-benefit to each platform, but if you go a route where you focus heavily on "what works best" on one platform the results could be ugly. See all the current PS3 ports (and delays... oh, MoH: Airborn finally shipped on the PS3).

 

UT3 has gone gold and is on schedule for December 12th (USA), check out the other thread...

 

I don't think that most people care about an "inferior version" as long as it is a good version, if a PS3 port have technical issues that hinder the gameplay or it's downright ugly the game and it's sequels will have lower sales.

If we add USA and Europe, the PS3 version of a game can expect having a half of the sales of the Xbox 360 version and that's a lot of sales that you can lose with bad ports. It is far more significant than the GameCube ports were.

 

I think that worry is not warranted. If the developers structure their data to work well on the SPUs of the PS3 it will in most cases lead to a better performance on the 360 as well. Creating efficient data structures takes a little more initial effort, but it will pay off on both platforms and simplify ports.

It´s not that strange if developers are starting to make the PS3 the lead platform if it saves them the work of cumbersome ports whith in many cases poor results and missed dead-lines.

 

Marketing.

 

OK, maybe "into oblivion" wasn't correct for UT3, but it's definitely been delayed - it was supposed to be released together with the PC version, right?

 

It will simplify ports, but complicate the overall development.

It's not like developers "will get used to PS3", and things will be easier next year. PS3 development will always need more effort, better programmers, etc.

 

That's the worst thing i've ever heard..

This could only occur if you successively throw newbies onto your PS3 projects & prevent those who have already gained much experience & familiarity with the architecture from continuing there work with it..

I'vd like to know exactly what you think will prevent PS3 coders from getting used to the platform?

 

Are you really sure that first making a PS3 version and then porting it to the 360 is more complicated than first making a 360 version and then porting it to the PS3?

A few developers have claimed the opposite.

It´s like saying developers will never get used to multi-core CPUs, is that your sentiment as well.

Of course things will get easier when the developers have a few games under the belt, why shouldn´t it?

 

The *will* get used to the platform, but it will never be just as easy as developing for a SMP machine (which, in turn, will never be as easy as developing for a single-threaded machine). So the reasoning "next year we'll get better ports because developers will get used" is flawed - unless, as you say, you fire your Xbox 360 developers and your 360 version doesn't get any more complicated.

 

The *porting* itself will be easier, but the initial development for the asymmetric CPU of the PS3 will be still significantly harder than if the lead version was on a SMP machine (PC/360).

 

Why would Activision put their "A" team on the PS3 version? X360 is going to have much higher volumes.

Wasn't COD4 featured at the MS booth at E3?

I remember some COD4 commercials. Can't recall if it ha a X360 or PS3 logo at the end. That will give you a clue about whatever business arrangements Activision had with either company.

MS has paid partly for some Madden commercials while Sony has done the same for some AC commercials, which each featuring exclusively their logos at the end.

 

No it isn't flawed because PS3 development doesn't get any harder over time!!!

Sure 360 development may advance at the same rate but that doesn't mean PS3 ports will get any worse..

As individuals become more accustomed to the conventions and quirks of the platform they'll start to innovate & work out their own solutions to exploit it..

So trying to say that "PS3 ports will never get any better" is a flawed statement & not the alternative..

[note - if you mean that "PS3 ports will never be better than there 360 equivalents" then this may or may not be true depending on several factors, the scope and type of game, whether the engine was designed first with the PS3 in mind, whether the PS3 was the lead platform, whether engine architectural separations are wide enough to allow the PS3 engineers to "do there own thing" under the hood whilst maintaining consistent top level interfaces, inputs, post-DCC-exported content formats etc.. In these cases it's completely possible that given the time and resources, the PS3 versions could look and run better..]