*Game Development Issues*

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah, that was my guess. Developers this year were doing their best to make sure people know the PS3 versions of their games were at parity with the 360.

How do we know they have parity if the XB360 versions aren't on show? Surely for that to be the reasons, they'd be showing both games side by side? And if you aren't showing both versions, wouldn't you prefer to show the better version? Not that I'm saying the PS3 versions are all superior, only thinking aloud what their reasoning is. Other reasoning would be reliability, if they are less trusting of XB360 hardware to go the show without dying. Can't think of anything else, but I don't agree with the idea of showing on PS3 to showcase PS3 skillzorz. Hmm, maybe, if they're trying to impress publishers instead of the media.

 

[Mintmaster]

It's interesting to note that about the floor demos, though.. a year or so ago, it was the exact opposite, the majority of show demos were on the 360.

With Sony putting less money into securing exclusives, I sometimes wonder if this is where there marketing dollars go. On cable TV in the US, for example, nearly every advertised multiplatform game that I've seen shows a PS3 logo at the end.

 

[eastmen]

Yeah, that was my guess. Developers this year were doing their best to make sure people know the PS3 versions of their games were at parity with the 360.



I'm not sure what you mean. G4 didn't have anything to do with choosing what version to show during their live demos.

Incidentally, I think their E3 coverage was outstanding this year. Really fantastic work.

I haven't read that in any interview so i'm not prone to believe it based on past g4 behavior . do you have an interview where g4 says the dev were free to choose what system to demo on and / or a dev interview stating that they could choose what to demo on for g4 and choose the ps3 .

 

[joker454]

Hmm, maybe, if they're trying to impress publishers instead of the media.

You're not as far off as you think Sony's first question now to any publisher is "Is your game at parity with the 360 version". That is their #1 concern, and they make no hesitation in letting you know it, and publishers make no hesitation in repeatedly reminding developers of it. If you're PS3 version isn't at parity, then you run the risk of being not approved by Sony and canceled on PS3.

The big guns like GTA4 of course play by a different rule book, they can ship a PS3 version with lesser frame rate, no aa, lower rez and orange tint. And of course, Sony themselves can release games that render at 1024x512. For the rest of us though, we have to explain every difference from the 360 version to Sony. You then either have to fix/add it on PS3, strip it from 360, or flex some studio muscle and hope Sony backs down.

Point being, impressing publishers with your PS3 abilities has now become somewhat more important than before. They don't want to be stuck funding a PS3 version of a game that may not be approved in the end due to deficiencies compared to the 360 version. For developers, when you are at a show like E3, it's not only about impressing the media. It's about impressing every publisher on the show floor. That's because a competing publisher today could become your publisher tomorrow.

 

[betan]

You're not as far off as you think Sony's first question now to any publisher is "Is your game at parity with the 360 version". That is their #1 concern, and they make no hesitation in letting you know it, and publishers make no hesitation in repeatedly reminding developers of it. If you're PS3 version isn't at parity, then you run the risk of being not approved by Sony and canceled on PS3.

The big guns like GTA4 of course play by a different rule book, they can ship a PS3 version with lesser frame rate, no aa, lower rez and orange tint.

orange tint? It's a sign of inferiority now?
Anyway, though I wish what you are saying is true, I find it unlikely. We have been seeing inferior ports before, during and after GTAIV release. Hopefully for the future.

And of course, Sony themselves can release games that render at 1024x512. For the rest of us though, we have to explain every difference from the 360 version to Sony.

I don't see any logical connection between those two sentences. But are you sure Rockstar haven't explained the differences to Sony? I mean in the end if it was Sony who was supposed to help them, they may not be in a position to blame anyone.

You then either have to fix/add it on PS3, strip it from 360, or flex some studio muscle and hope Sony backs down.

Or lead on PS3 to begin with? I know horrible thought.

Point being, impressing publishers with your PS3 abilities has now become somewhat more important than before. They don't want to be stuck funding a PS3 version of a game that may not be approved in the end due to deficiencies compared to the 360 version.
For developers, when you are at a show like E3, it's not only about impressing the media. It's about impressing every publisher on the show floor. That's because a competing publisher today could become your publisher tomorrow.

interesting take.

 

[joker454]

orange tint? It's a sign of inferiority now?

That "orange tint" part was a joke, going back to that huge thread where some found the PS3 version better because of the orange tint, in spite of all the other shortcomings. Well, at least I found it funny anyways

I don't see any logical connection between those two sentences.

I'll reword it for you then...Sony are exempt from their own rules. I've already been on the receiving end of that double standard once before, it exists. I could make frame rate *today* if I were allowed to render at 1024x512 since we're mostly fragment bound. If I tried that while the 360 version was left at 1280x720, do you think Sony would accept it? I'll give you a hint, the answer is no

But are you sure Rockstar haven't explained the differences to Sony?

Whether they did or didn't is largely moot because Rockstar can do anything it damn well wants. Which manufacturer in their right mind would refuse GTA4?

I mean in the end if it was Sony who was supposed to help them, they may not be in a position to blame anyone.

'Help' does not mean they send a crack team of 20 commandos to code the game for them. It's usually one, maybe two guys that go over and make suggestions, much of which can be deduced through gcmReplay anyways. In the end, Rockstar still has to code it all themselves.

Or lead on PS3 to begin with? I know horrible thought.

Too expensive. It would take longer to complete the game that way due mostly to tools which still lag behind, everything from compilers, debuggers, etc. Given that some studios have a $1 million/month burn, it's really not recommended to go that route unless Sony is bankrolling you.

 

[RobertR1]

Wow! Way to strong arm, Sony. I think with their sales finally picking up, their attitude is also. I can only imagine what they'd want if they were dominating...

 

[betan]

I'll reword it for you then...Sony are exempt from their own rules.

The doesn't apply here though, because you are talking about inferior ports, clearly Sony are exempt.

I've already been on the receiving end of that double standard once before, it exists.

unlike other platform holders?

I could make frame rate *today* if I were allowed to render at 1024x512 since we're mostly fragment bound. If I tried that while the 360 version was left at 1280x720, do you think Sony would accept it? I'll give you a hint, the answer is no

I hope it is no, but not at the expense of poor framerate on PS3.

Whether they did or didn't is largely moot because Rockstar can do anything it damn well wants. Which manufacturer in their right mind would refuse GTA4?

It's a little important because the fact that Rockstar had that power doesn't mean they abused it.

'Help' does not mean they send a crack team of 20 commandos to code the game for them. It's usually one, maybe two guys that go over and make suggestions, much of which can be deduced through gcmReplay anyways. In the end, Rockstar still has to code it all themselves.

Does that mean you know what help Rockstar got? Same as everyone else? A little weird considering their "power" over Sony.

Too expensive. It would take longer to complete the game that way due mostly to tools which still lag behind, everything from compilers, debuggers, etc. Given that some studios have a $1 million/month burn, it's really not recommended to go that route unless Sony is bankrolling you.

Unfortunately we don't have quantitative data on this. But you may be right, all the info saying PS3 exclusives cost comparable to 360 counterparts are inaccurate given the software support and experienced developers' unavailability.

Still it's a very viable alternative against that evil Sony.

 

[-tkf-]

Wow! Way to strong arm, Sony. I think with their sales finally picking up, their attitude is also. I can only imagine what they'd want if they were dominating...

Apart from the "removing features" from the 360 version i can only say, YES! If it turns out the developers can be "forced" to deliver an equal product to the PS3 i guess they weren´t trying hard enough from the start.

Again, the "nerf" on the 360 version ins´t acceptable, maybe Joker has some real examples?

 

[psorcerer]

I'll reword it for you then...Sony are exempt from their own rules. I've already been on the receiving end of that double standard once before, it exists. I could make frame rate *today* if I were allowed to render at 1024x512 since we're mostly fragment bound. If I tried that while the 360 version was left at 1280x720, do you think Sony would accept it? I'll give you a hint, the answer is no

Hire BB, who helped you with replay, and he'll make it run and jump. Or try to be wiser yourself. I'm not too rude?

Whether they did or didn't is largely moot because Rockstar can do anything it damn well wants. Which manufacturer in their right mind would refuse GTA4?

Yeah, yeah, shipping with B grade bugs "like Rockstar" seems to be every developer wet dream right now. Better don't even start.

'Help' does not mean they send a crack team of 20 commandos to code the game for them. It's usually one, maybe two guys that go over and make suggestions, much of which can be deduced through gcmReplay anyways. In the end, Rockstar still has to code it all themselves.

Fire bad ones, hire good ones. Simple, eh?

Too expensive. It would take longer to complete the game that way due mostly to tools which still lag behind, everything from compilers, debuggers, etc. Given that some studios have a $1 million/month burn, it's really not recommended to go that route unless Sony is bankrolling you.

So now you're actually saying: we are dumb, we cannot get acceptable performance, pity us, aren't you?

 

[obonicus]

That "orange tint" part was a joke, going back to that huge thread where some found the PS3 version better because of the orange tint, in spite of all the other shortcomings. Well, at least I found it funny anyways

I'll reword it for you then...Sony are exempt from their own rules. I've already been on the receiving end of that double standard once before, it exists. I could make frame rate *today* if I were allowed to render at 1024x512 since we're mostly fragment bound. If I tried that while the 360 version was left at 1280x720, do you think Sony would accept it? I'll give you a hint, the answer is no

Whether they did or didn't is largely moot because Rockstar can do anything it damn well wants. Which manufacturer in their right mind would refuse GTA4?

'Help' does not mean they send a crack team of 20 commandos to code the game for them. It's usually one, maybe two guys that go over and make suggestions, much of which can be deduced through gcmReplay anyways. In the end, Rockstar still has to code it all themselves.

Too expensive. It would take longer to complete the game that way due mostly to tools which still lag behind, everything from compilers, debuggers, etc. Given that some studios have a $1 million/month burn, it's really not recommended to go that route unless Sony is bankrolling you.

How come you know so much about publisher relations and the deals dev-houses get with publishers? Is the gaming industry really so open about such things?

 

[eastmen]

How come you know so much about publisher relations and the deals dev-houses get with publishers? Is the gaming industry really so open about such things?

he is a developer

 

[nAo]

Developers are like tomatoes, they are not all created the same.

 

[obonicus]

he is a developer

That's why I'm asking. I know he's a developer. Being a developer doesn't mean you know every detail of a project, especially financial ones. Hence, my question as to whether the game industry is so open.

 

[Brad Grenz]

With Sony putting less money into securing exclusives, I sometimes wonder if this is where there marketing dollars go. On cable TV in the US, for example, nearly every advertised multiplatform game that I've seen shows a PS3 logo at the end.

People say this on the internet a lot but my own experience is that I see both versions of the same co-branded commercial about equally. If there was some demonstrable statistical evidence, that would be one thing, but you could just be missing the other versions on channels you don't watch.

I haven't read that in any interview so i'm not prone to believe it based on past g4 behavior . do you have an interview where g4 says the dev were free to choose what system to demo on and / or a dev interview stating that they could choose what to demo on for g4 and choose the ps3 .

Well, I just know a guy who works at G4 and asked about what I was seeing in their coverage. Here's a link. Matt Keil works on X-Play and helped produce their E3 coverage. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, there's really no reason to dismiss his answer.

 

[chachi]

Or lead on PS3 to begin with? I know horrible thought.

If the PS3 is the limiting factor then leading on the PS3 is the same as nerfing the 360 version, it's just a more politically correct way of saying it. If Sony releases new tools that reverse the situation would you really be arguing for the least common denominator then?

Again we have this: it's not that some people are necessarily wanting better software, they just don't want the 360 version to be better. Maybe it'd be better to say it like this: they want better software but will accept less just as long as nobody else gets anything better. This is bad for gamers in the long run as the games are what matter, not companies or fanboy egos. Neither console is so expensive that you should feel locked into being some company's bitch.

About how joker454 would know so much, it's because developers are people and people talk about things with their friends. A lot of times those friends also work in the industry. Most are also fans of gaming (or used to be back when they had a life outside of work) and industry scuttlebutt is an interesting topic for them just like it is for the rest of us on the board. It's just that they tend to be better informed than us. What you'd say on a public message board is usually quite a bit different than what you'd say in private. Take a stroll through memory lane and look up the first few threads joker454 was in, what he said back then was controversial but is conventional wisdom now. You can also see some other developers in there spinning, I'll leave them nameless.

 

[joker454]

Hire BB, who helped you with replay, and he'll make it run and jump. Or try to be wiser yourself. I'm not too rude?

Who's BB? In any case, We're only ~2ms from making frame at full rez, I'm not worried about it.

Yeah, yeah, shipping with B grade bugs "like Rockstar" seems to be every developer wet dream right now. Better don't even start.

Not sure where you're going with this. The big boys run with a different rule book, that's all I was saying.

So now you're actually saying: we are dumb, we cannot get acceptable performance, pity us, aren't you?

Again, not really sure where you're going here. If a company can spend X dollars developing a product, or spend X+Y dollars, there is no reason to choose option B. I've yet to encounter anyone that claims PS3 development is the cheaper of the two, so why would you lead on it unless you just feel like burning through more cash? If anyone can explain to me how leading on PS3 would save money, then spell it out. I'd be interesting in hearing the theory behind it.

How come you know so much about publisher relations and the deals dev-houses get with publishers?

I don't, just what I've experienced in my small corner of the world. As for the rest, just go to shows, mingle, share info. Just good old fashioned shmoozing. The games industry is very incestuous in that regard, it's a fairly small group of people that you usually end up working with at multiple companies over the years. Besides, strong arm tactics are nothing new, everyone knows about them. Nintendo was legendary in that regard many years ago. I'm sure Microsoft isn't magically exempt from that tactic either.

Again, the "nerf" on the 360 version ins´t acceptable, maybe Joker has some real examples?

Jeeze, you really wanna get me crucified on this forum, don't cha?

Does that mean you know what help Rockstar got? Same as everyone else? A little weird considering their "power" over Sony.

It's not power, so much as leverage. It was different in the PS2 days. With a 100+ million install base, Sony had the levarage to force exclusivity windows, etc... That leverage has largely slipped away in this generation, which lets Rockstar do more of the dictating. I guess think of it this way, could Sony pass on GTA4 with little to no business consequences? If the answer is no, then Rockstar has leverage and they, to a certain extent, call the shots. That's not really abuse, it's just business as usual.

Still it's a very viable alternative against that evil Sony.

Well strictly speaking, they can all potentially become evil. If Sony dominated then we'd have drm up to our eyeballs. If Microsoft dominated then we'd probably have to spend Microsoft points just to turn the console on. You just need enough checks and balances to keep them all in line

Developers are like tomatoes, they are not all created the same.

Hmm, maybe I'm a Roma tomato, hopefully with not too many worms.

 

[slider]

Appreciate you posting joker.

 

[PARANOiA]

Indeed, please don't attack or crucify Joker for posting thoughts. He's far closer to knowing what's happening than pretty much all of us outsiders, and we should be grateful to have people of his ilk sharing their experiences here.

 

[bbot]

John Carmack apparently disses PS3

On the video clip second from the top, starting about around 1:18, John Carmack says it's more difficult to develop on the PS3.

http://kotaku.com/5025229/carmack-talks-from-idea-to-mac-gaming-and-ps3-programming