The disparity in opinion appears to be polarized with Sony-exclusive developers on one side and multiplatform developers on the other. True, there are exceptions, but the early concerns about the skill required to effectively manage Cell and the split memory configuration in a "next generation title" within
reasonable budgets do appear to be manifest in some studios.
All the name calling aside, these hurdles have been faced by a lot of good developers. Nevermind engine developers like Epic and id who have a substantial stake in getting their engines to run well on the PS3.
How would people feel if GTAIV was delayed because the PS3 version was lagging behind the 360 version, something that has happened to a fair number of studios? Rockstar may be full of lazy hacks, but their games are extremely popular and critically praised. But
if a studio like Rockstar is having problems I think it brings to point a very valid longterm question: At what point do the games become so large and complex and the systems so powerful that the focus of system design needs to shift away from peak performance and towards a design that is easy for developers of all walks to "effortlessly" tap. Are we barking up the wrong tree with the persuit of peak power over the power to create and execute design goals? I think the next consoles really need to address this question... but I digress.
It is great that a number of studios had the know how, people, time and resources to hit the ground running with the PS3. But it does appear it takes extra work to get the PS3 version to perform as well as the 360 version (as Carmack said long ago) and that the SPEs do limit who can, and cannot, be writing code (as Newell said long ago).
Time and People are finite resources.
I can appreciate that the PS3 is easier to work with than the PS2. But the PS3 isn't competing with the PS2. Further, to remain competitive the PS3 is having to play on the same field for developers who didn't bother with the PS2. A lot of this seems relative. If the Xbox 360 didn't give similar results with less effort there would be no baseline to complain about. This is compounded by the fact the 360 was released first (and was the platform most started cutting their teeth on for next gen software, so everything is relative to this) and, much more notably, that the 360's install base and attach rate are very high in the NA/Europe while Sony has floundered some in their first year relative to the current market penetration of the competition.
Developers were "spoiled" with the 360 and the PS3, while easier than the PS2, some have been quite frustrated when trying to migrate their projects over because it isn't easier than the 360. Developers on the PS3/360 aren't PS2-complex games (for the most part!), so comparisons ring hallow to most multiplatform developers because the PS2 is no longer the baseline. If the PS3 had the market position that PS2 had this would be different. You can get away with a lot when you are the market leader and hold a firm grip on the industry.
In some ways this is all unfortunate because, lost in such, is the fact is Sony did address some issues with the PS3 design. They went with an over the counter GPU, leveraged a great existing API in an OpenGL varient, and aquired some excellent tools in Cg. Cell is a step in the right direction and the basic concept appears to be the future of CPUs (at least in some quarters) and Sony has improved their tools and support. Their work with the PSN is also notable and good for the industry as it offers a true alternative to the Live model of business.
But games are bigger, more complex, and have more hands on them--and more at stake. More time, more money. An average title can sink a development studios; a couple bad "big titles" could do longterm harm to a publisher. If Sony were first to market and had captured sizable early marketshare I think some of these issues would have been minimized to a degree. As has been noted, going PS3=>360 is a lot easier than vice versa. The flexiblity and memory situation on the 360, part of what makes it friendly to developers, allows for some designs and practices that don't perform as well on the PS3.
Of course from the Sony camp we hear, "
You are doing it wrong, THAT is your problem" whereas in the Microsoft/Multiplatform camp we hear, "
This works fine on the PC and 360, so YOUR design is the problem."
And the majority of the industry could very well be wrong... but the reality is these are the people making games. If the industry was levels of degree from, "We will adapt to you" all the way to "You will adapt to us" it seems in broad strokes MS and Sony are straddling opposite sides of the fence.
The situation will get better, over time, as more studios adopt a PS3-lead-SKU approach and more 'good practices' prevail, experience grows, and libraries & tools become available. But the PS3 is on the clock. It needs software sales momentum to encourage this shift and it has limited time for such. At some point the competition will hit critical mass and the new consoles will be gaining steam. With a lot of the more notable titles taking 3 years (and more) to develop a title begun today may appear in the last holiday before the new consoles arrive.
It is nice to say everything is there for developers to "get started" but from a business perspective if the competition gives you a head start and a faster development window (more time either means a more polished project or making money by moving on to something new) you are going to hear grumbling. If your titles get delayed (and this IS happening) because the PS3, for whatever reason, is taking more time to get up to the same performance as the other 2 platforms, you are going to hear grumbling. We can blame developers.
But in the same breath we can ask why didn't Sony do more to account for these same developers when designing the machine. Obviously Sony
did (and balanced such with their corporate vision and the technology they had available) but it shows how the constant blaming of developers really doesn't address the realities some of these companies are facing. Ok, they got their data structures wrong and seem unhappy about investing the time to re-structure their game to get equal performance on both systems. But at the end of the day this is what they have been doing for years and it works on the market leader. So as much as developers need to change some of their practices, Sony is in the inevitable position to helping developers find solutions NOW before their titles slip. And that there doesn't breed much goodwill among some of these smaller, tighter budgeted multiplatform studios. They would much prefer to spend the time making the product better instead of just getting it to work.
