Even though you brushed it off (and rightfully so), I just don't see how a company would even question as to whether or not to develop a PS3 version as the PS3 sales would far outweigh the production costs. I simply can't fathom the ability for a company to leave that much money on the table. And when it does happen it's usually related to compensation received as a result of exclusivity or timed release deals. To tell your stakeholders that you're going to ignore a market with a 25% less installed base would not sit well unless you have a perfectly legitimate reason.
*Game Development Issues*
- Thread starter valioso
- Start date
- Status
Even though you brushed it off (and rightfully so), I just don't see how a company would even question as to whether or not to develop a PS3 version as the PS3 sales would far outweigh the production costs. I simply can't fathom the ability for a company to leave that much money on the table. And when it does happen it's usually related to compensation received as a result of exclusivity or timed release deals. To tell your stakeholders that you're going to ignore a market with a 25% less installed base would not sit well unless you have a perfectly legitimate reason.
Right , but if you invest in the xbox 360 with the easier dev enviorment you get a completed game that will sell to many users and then you can port it to the ps3. The ps3 port may not be as good as the xbox 360 verison that was the lead platform but you can still recoup costs . However if you target the ps3 as the lead platform there is no guarntee that the xbox 360 wont lag behind other games of the same time period and look worse or have game stoping bugs and thus you alienate your bigger market.
Your post seems to forget the fact that you can still put out a ps3 verison with the xbox 360 as the lead platform.
Except if doing the 'easier environment' thing results in ending up scrambling like crazy for last few months of development to salvage the mostly ignored PS3 version to minimum standard of quality, you may not be saving money at all in the end. Especially with devs that throw a lot of money around, it's not uncommon tactics to throw a ton of extra people in the last minute at a 'problem' that went largely ignored before (granted, it's not just platform specific thing).eastmen said:
But it's an issue of common sense, you want to try and plan development to avoid potential issues down the road(there will be enough of them cropping up even with that anyway), not turn a blind eye to them and hope for the best.
Remember this next time you hear the argument that the 360 is a failure because it hasn't broken away decisively from the Xbox numbers (it has) or because it hasn't captured casuals or because the sales ratio for this and this game is worse than the install base ratio.
Try to fathom the following situation: you have a small software team, barely enough to finish a PC version and do a 360 port. You don't have the luxury to slip both for 6-9 months, and Sony don't accept sub-par ports or very late ports. You don't have access to a job market full of PS3 gurus. Here are your alternatives:
- block the PC and 360 release until your coders get up to speed with PS3 (and put the entire studio on instant noodles)
- say "fsck you, Blu-ray watchers, you don't buy games anyway" and skip the PS3
Right but you don't want your flagship title to suffer on the larger install base because you had to get the smaller install base up to par.
For example. Shooter A doesn't want to invest in ps3 as a lead platform if its target is NA and have bugs or sub par 360 graphics (be it poor textures , screen tearing or other things) and Have to compete against Shooter B that targeted teh 360 from the onset and doesn't face any of these bugs or graphical problems. The 360 user base will most likely go for the better looking game that has less glitches and other problems which would be Shooter B. Esp if reviews and word of mouth favors it.
If I was developing a game. I would target the 360 adn then port the game. Perhaps even be able to negotiate some form of timed exclusive period with MS while i continue work on the ps3 version. esp if its a Western targeted game.
I think you're missing the point of the theory. By leading on PS3, you should end up with at least as good as, if not a better, XB360 game, and a better PS3 game. Whereas in focussing on XB360, you end up with a troubled PS3 development that struggles to do as well. If so, the end result for Shooter A, if designed for PS3 from the outset, would be a game that plays better on both platforms, versus Shooter B that is either not available on PS3 and missing a potential 15 million strong market (40% of the HD consoles), or is looking rougher on PS3 next to the smooth and shiny Shooter A. Not that visual quality alone is going to sell Shooter A over Shooter B or vice versa, when there are plenty other factors to worry about!
These consoles are several years old already, both gained "critical mass" userbase, there should be no reason why developers should neglect either version, after all if a game is good it will achieve healthy levels of sales on both platforms, but more importantly, gamers pay for it $60 regardless of SKU and offering them bad experience on one console is just unethical.
The scenario you described is not an eco system in which high budget AAA titles are produced. I can see this situation being applicable to downloadable games and even then the other console version is usually released when they want to milk the IP. And when this happens, the bugs are all ironed out, new features are added and any DLC is included.
But its just a theory. The very few games i've heard of with the ps3 as the lead platform has normaly had problems on the 360. I will have to dig up the quotes but I believe that the Star wars game was lead on the ps3 and the xbox 360 version has many problems including that horrible screen tearing .
I think Joker454 disagree with this statement, you should read ~ten pages ago
But the consensus still seems to be that it would be better than the other way around.
And a lot of 360-lead games performed terribly on PS3. What's worse, a game that's so bad that 1/3 of your potential userbase may avoid it entirely, or two games that perform just okay. Remember, the non-enthusiast doesn't care/can't tell that much -- GTA4 for PS3 was considered by many (including reviewers) to have superior graphics despite no AA and lower resolution, just because of an orange tint. Screen-tearing and framerate stuttering will go unnoticed unless it's terrible, at least from personal experience.
I think Joker454 disagree with this statement, you should read ~ten pages ago
But the consensus still seems to be that it would be better than the other way around.
It may be better for developers. But i'm a gamer and I want to get the best verison on my console of choice. That is currently the 360 as not only do I find live to be a better experiance (more people with voice chat , easier cross title invites and navagation) but simply more of my friends have 360s vs those with ps3s. I don't want to play games with issues on my console on choice and the console the majority have chosen to buy.
They're close enough world-wide that it's not even that clear-cut.
But does it matter world wide if your developing a title that doesn't sell in certian markets. Like a FPS game that isn't popular in Japan. What does the japanese market have to do with choices made for games like that.
Hence why all new consoles will be Wii-like and the focus will be on software and tools.
To reiterate the point made quite a while ago, what does install base have to do with it at all?
If you're making a crossplatform game, that decision has already been made. The only issue is selecting which method of development is most likely to allow you to produce a comparable game on both platforms, on time and on budget.
In principle your largely right, once you've made the decision to add a version it's a purely logistical problem.
In practice the install base actually does impact the amount of effort that goes into a platform, because it colors decisions during development.
What's a bigger budget, development or marketing?
When you see EA commercials, you see that XBL logo featured prominently.
Now I see with Star Wars Force Unleashed, there is the Playstation logo.
Maybe development budgets and strategies are just one part, not just the biggest part, in the decision-making process on whether a title is supported on a given platform and how well that platform is supported.
When you see EA commercials, you see that XBL logo featured prominently.
Now I see with Star Wars Force Unleashed, there is the Playstation logo.
Maybe development budgets and strategies are just one part, not just the biggest part, in the decision-making process on whether a title is supported on a given platform and how well that platform is supported.
EA and Lucasarts (and basically every other publisher) will run co-branded ads for both platforms. Just because you haven't seen both versions of the commercial doesn't mean there is a marketing conspiracy at work. I hate seeing this comment over and over again on message boards. It's common practice, it's a non-issue and where you see which version is a matter of marketing demographics more than anything else.
Yeah. That's the problem. The whole point is to try and divorce these decisions from emotion and market conditions, and other things that give you an excuse to do something that will end up hurting you in the end. The goal is maximize your returns. To do that you plan your development in a manner which will give you as much quality for both SKUs to maximize sales and minimize development costs. Obviously there are a lot of 360s out there. That's why you're supporting the platform. But that's no reason so handicap your PS3 version at the risk of its sales under performing, ala The Orange Box.
Yeah. That's the problem. The whole point is to try and divorce these decisions from emotion and market conditions, and other things that give you an excuse to do something that will end up hurting you in the end. The goal is maximize your returns. To do that you plan your development in a manner which will give you as much quality for both SKUs to maximize sales and minimize development costs. Obviously there are a lot of 360s out there. That's why you're supporting the platform. But that's no reason so handicap your PS3 version at the risk of its sales under performing, ala The Orange Box.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
