*Game Development Issues*

[Gradthrawn]

In the era of patches to console games, running out of time shouldn't be an excuse.

They should be able to address these issues after release.

If we were to look at the bottom line, would doing so actually help sales? I ask that genuinely, I don't really know. I suppose there are short term and long term ramifications one would have to take into account to determine direct and indirect effects on sales.

EDIT

I raise the question because the publisher would also likely raise the questions when searching for justification to do so. Although, I've jumped in late in the discussion and now see that my point is clearly off-topic.

 

[Tap In]

It takes no extra ram on 360 because it's all done in the 10mb of edram (tiled). It takes extra memory on PS3 though. It's that double memory/performance whammy that makes msaa tough to pull off on multi platform games.

I find this interesting, after the PR in 05 by Ms that EDRAM was going to allow the system to excel this gen at AA compared to competition and past gens. In retrospect and with this kind of dev feedback it appears to have been a pretty good design decision of the system. although of course it could always have been better. but considering it was released in 2005 it seems the architecture is allowing devs to release some very good games technically at this time in the Gen's life cycle with superior results in many cases.

 

[GuestLV]

Sony hints at future third party downgrades for 360
Games to lead on PS3 as it's "easier to lead with the most powerful, both in terms of AI and graphics".
http://www.videogamer.com/news/03-11-2008-9831.html

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The PR and marketing people would do well to shut up so they don't look stupid, and let the games do the talking if they ever do. The comment is evidentally based on negligable technical knowhow, and quite frankly is beneath us here.

 

[Tap In]

Sony hints at future third party downgrades for 360
Games to lead on PS3 as it's "easier to lead with the most powerful, both in terms of AI and graphics".
http://www.videogamer.com/news/03-11-2008-9831.html

this just in... "Sony says PS3 is better than 360".

OTOH,

We're already seeing multi-format titles being lead on PS3, including the great looking Mirror's Edge from DICE, but judged on the released demo the game still looks marginally sharper on Xbox 360.

stealth edit: what shifty said above.

 

[Dominik D]

You're overestimating how well informed people are. Look at EA audience model or ihobo audience model. Core gamers who read reviews and know that bugs are not present in all the SKUs are in the minority if we assume game sells 2mln+ units worldwide. And it will. Pair it with the fact that most people don't finish games and chances are they won't hit these issues at all or will hit them once/twice and will just find them funny/creepy.

These kind of discussions always suffer from the notion that gamers like you are in majority. They are not. If game sells more than one million, chances are that most of the purchases were influenced by external factors (friends, clerks) and not explicit knowledge about the game.

What it tells you in terms of multiplatform dev is IMO this: if Bethesda didn't go the extra mile and fixed the bugs that means additional investment wasn't worth the extra dollars polishing the prodact would make. That means that either dev costs are much higher or simply ROI is lower on PS3.

 

[Dominik D]

Can we please ignore "developers are lazy" comments and proceed with ontopic discussion?

I have a question, if someone knows the answer it'd be cool to hear it. How does SN Systems environment compare to XDK tools? My understanding is that SNSys soft integrates with VS, but does it match XDK features, exceeds or lacks?

 

[Arwin]

Oh of course, you'd never see a stream of compromises on single platform PS3 games. It's not like you would ever see a game like Metal Gear 4 run at sub HD resolution. Likewise, you would never see heavily pixelated particles on Motorstorm 2 because the lack of edram means they have to render particles into a 1/4 or even 1/16th size buffer. You'd certainly never see a a game like Little Big Planet require an install. Or of course, you'd never see a PS3 lead title like Mirrors Edge ship with no msaa on the lead platform, yet enable it on the 360 version.

Nope, none of the above would ever occur because of course they are all motivated developers, while the rest of us are just schmucks who like putting out crap games.

Mirror's Edge was a lead on PS3? What's the point of that comment, running on UE3? (which was lead on PC, sure enough? ). What's the point of the comment on Little Big Planet requiring an install, exactly? Are you implying it wouldn't run without one?

And more importantly, you have Motorstorm 2? Because if so, let's play online!

Your point is still valid of course, yes, games will require some compromises on either platform because both have their strengths and weaknesses. However, I also think the point is valid that so far multi-platform games are developed to the strengths of 360 more than to that of the PS3, and even then PS3 ports are often not given the care they deserve/need. I personally do think that exclusives tend to show the PS3 in a favorable light, but that's definitely not the topic of this thread.

Microsoft did the smart thing, and made the life of developers easier in many ways, and also made it easier for developers to work on PC and 360 both, and did something at the right time in the right mindset for the market forces currently at play. The PS3 favors the PS2 style developer, but those are currently in the minority. The only way the PS3 can make up now is by offering awesome exclusives, and I have to say, for me they are succeeding. But that's a matter of opinion, and the sales and numbers are not yet in the PS3s favor.

But I'm loth to discuss anything more that's on this level of generic-ness. We should restrain ourselves to specific examples of how specific problems are solved differently on the two (or three) platforms.

 

[szymku]

What about recent game sales? Publishers like Namco, Konami, EA, Ubisoft are selling more games for PS3 than for xO ... Do you think that will change developers approach, so PS3 SKU's will get more love and will no longer be treated as l(e)ast thing to do in developement process?

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Oh of course, you'd never see a stream of compromises on single platform PS3 games. It's not like you would ever see a game like Metal Gear 4 run at sub HD resolution. Likewise, you would never see heavily pixelated particles on Motorstorm 2 because the lack of edram means they have to render particles into a 1/4 or even 1/16th size buffer. You'd certainly never see a a game like Little Big Planet require an install. Or of course, you'd never see a PS3 lead title like Mirrors Edge ship with no msaa on the lead platform, yet enable it on the 360 version.

Nope, none of the above would ever occur because of course they are all motivated developers, while the rest of us are just schmucks who like putting out crap games.

how about games like the show 08? :smile:

 

[patsu]

In the era of patches to console games, running out of time shouldn't be an excuse.

They should be able to address these issues after release.

I don't think so.

In the Bioshock case, I think they have limited budget for the PS3 port, plus the team should be working on Bioshock 2.

The argument of "lead platform" is debatable because there is no formal definition of what lead platform means. Every team probably has its own interpretation. We are looking at a complex problem of limited resources, time, inertial and expertise. Economics (or just $$$) is one of the most effective ways out.

EDIT: joker454, in your examples, I believe compromises were made in exclusive 360 games too when they pushed the envelope. You should be able to find concrete instances.

EDIT 2: Actually, there might be another way out but it's untested as far as I can see.

 

[wco81]

Before Madden 09 came out, a lot of members of the the development team started engaging directly with fans in some forums.

They got a good reception and for a time, there was good will. The EA people talked about doing 2 patches and a DLC to put back in certain features which had been removed from the previous year.

There was a lot of enthusiasm about the patches and DLC, which EA always made clear were not guaranteed.

EA did deliver 2 patches but they decided to punt on the DLC and the reaction was brutal.

So developers are probably reticent to patch unless there are some egregious or legal issues.

 

[Turok]

What about recent game sales? Publishers like Namco, Konami, EA, Ubisoft are selling more games for PS3 than for xO ... Do you think that will change developers approach, so PS3 SKU's will get more love and will no longer be treated as l(e)ast thing to do in developement process?

Do you have a source to back that up? Konami is a given with MGS4, but the other ones sound doubtful.

 

[zawarudo]

Do you have a source to back that up? Konami is a given with MGS4, but the other ones sound doubtful.

In any case we wouldn't have data from anywhere but the States really, and if we're talking worldwide, it's very likely that the PS3 software sales in Europe move the bigger picture by quite a bit.

 

[woundingchaney]

Konami and Namco should go without saying as selling more for the PS3. Konami has the MGS4 exclusive (along with relatively no 360 support) and Namco is more of a Japanese centric developer (though I would like to see current statistics on Namco in English ). I can personally guarantee that EA sales more titles on the 360. Ubisoft is up in the air as I havent seen any solid statistics from them, though for some reason I was thinking that Ubi has released more titles on the PS3 as of late. As far as overall software the 360 considerably outsells the PS3 in software on a regular basis, which it should considering install base and the PS3 install base being split between gamers and those using it primarily for a BD player.

Szymku is referring to a sensational and potentially misleading article released recently on an unknown site.

Edit: Found Namco and yes they sell more on the PS3 even with the PS3 having less titles (RR gave the PS3 a large boost).

As of Q2 08 Ubisoft looks to be comparable on the two platforms, though in general as of late they have been favoring Sony sales a little primarily due to Ubisoft and Sony's strong presence in Europe.
http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery...df?PHPSESSID=a7e7dd6437825b39444ac12d9e61f3ee

Though I would expect this to change to the 360s favor given their line-up this fall/winter.

 

[zawarudo]

Personally guarantee that, can you? That won't cut it. Also, for what region?

 

[woundingchaney]

Personally guarantee that, can you? That won't cut it. Also, for what region?

World Wide


If you dont believe me check their financials and look up the NON-GAAP comparison for console unit sales. EA has indicated to use NON-GAAP for sales comparison, EA has a different financial agreement with MS and Sony so GAAP is not a direct correlation (for those two companies anyways).

 

[BadTB25]

I think it's the nature of the beast to spend your resources on the system that has the larger install base and consequently the greater projected potential for better sales.

It was pretty clear in the PS2/Xbox 1 generation that even though the PS2 was harder to develop for and the Xbox 1 had more over system advantages that most multi-platform games lead on the PS2.

For the developers on the forum, my perception is that MS is more willing to share it's best practices than Sony. Would you say that is a fact or myth?

If PS3 sales catch up to the X360 install base, there might be a shift in developer thinking. I predict that until that happens, you will see a lot of developers lead with the 360 and port to the PS3. I'm sure it also helps that the 360 is easier to get up and running with quicker.

Frankly my PS3 is reserved for exclusives for the most part.

 

[Cyan]

I think it's the nature of the beast to spend your resources on the system that has the larger install base and consequently the greater projected potential for better sales.

It was pretty clear in the PS2/Xbox 1 generation that even though the PS2 was harder to develop for and the Xbox 1 had more over system advantages that most multi-platform games lead on the PS2.

For the developers on the forum, my perception is that MS is more willing to share it's best practices than Sony. Would you say that is a fact or myth?

If PS3 sales catch up to the X360 install base, there might be a shift in developer thinking. I predict that until that happens, you will see a lot of developers lead with the 360 and port to the PS3. I'm sure it also helps that the 360 is easier to get up and running with quicker.

Frankly my PS3 is reserved for exclusives for the most part.

By best do you mean having the best development tools? Certainly development tools, console friendly engines and good developers with a positive attitude is all fine and good but, let’s face it, it does not mean squat if the machine doesn't perform.

 

[BadTB25]

By best do you mean having the best development tools? Certainly development tools, console friendly engines and good developers with a positive attitude is all fine and good but, let’s face it, it does not mean squat if the machine doesn't perform.

Having user friendly developer tools certainly doesn't hurt, but what I meant was more of willingness to provide technical support to help developers get the most of the hardware.

I'm going from memory here and have no actual links to back up this claim, but I seem to recall several interviews where developers have stated that they felt MS was giving them really good support. I don't tend to hear the same amount of interviews regarding the PS3, although a few do come to mind.

It's why I posed the question from a perspective point of view.

Additionally, the Gamefest (Forza 2) slides seem to suggest that MS is willing to share what they learn to helps/hinders development on the 360.