Game Parity Syndrome

[Shortbread]

Let's not bring any game systems names into this discussion, but rather discuss "your opinion or thoughts" on how game parity effects the bottom line ($$$) and the end-user experience.

I personally believe game developers should bring the best experience "when possible" on any system... if it doesn't effect their overall budget. Game development shouldn't be strong-armed by console developers and fan-base fanatics... It should be based around the game developers needs... and if the system of choice fits that scope, so let it be!

If the bottom line ($$$) for most multi-platform developers would be to get their wares across as many platforms as they can, without any noise and downgrade purposely for parity... IMHO, that's not pushing the industry forward, that's crippling it.

Your thoughts?

 

[JPT]

I dont think anybody is against a platform being maxed and used to the best of its ability.
But as your condition is "If it doesn't effect their overall budget"

And that is what it will automatically do, for instance, X1 vs PS4, you add some kinect stuff for the X1 and some touchpad stuff for the PS4. Now you have different code segments that needs to be maintained and tested. Also QA will have to do different work on the different versions, this means extra time which is extra cost. If there is no Kinect and Touchpad features, then its the same code and QA testers can apply the same test to both versions.

Current generation I get the feeling it was more of, how can we get the PS3 to be as good as the X360. And not so much dumbing down the X360, ie the multiplat bar was set with the X360 and then maybe to much work went into getting the PS3 version on par.

 

[Shortbread]

I dont think anybody is against a platform being maxed and used to the best of its ability.
But as your condition is "If it doesn't effect their overall budget"

And that is what it will automatically do, for instance, X1 vs PS4, you add some kinect stuff for the X1 and some touchpad stuff for the PS4. Now you have different code segments that needs to be maintained and tested. Also QA will have to do different work on the different versions, this means extra time which is extra cost. If there is no Kinect and Touchpad features, then its the same code and QA testers can apply the same test to both versions.

Current generation I get the feeling it was more of, how can we get the PS3 to be as good as the X360. And not so much dumbing down the X360, ie the multiplat bar was set with the X360 and then maybe to much work went into getting the PS3 version on par.

I'm more concerned about PC wares ports and non-add-ons that don't require a larger budget. I'm more focused on what initially sales games - eye candy. Next generation of gaming is and foremost about improving visuals over its predecessors. So crippling IQ on one system, to make another user base feel good about their purchase, is not helping the industry IMHO.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Surely platform parity is something that happens over time. To start with all platforms are treated equally and the same code base is applied equally. If one platform is weaker than the other then you just dial back on effects on that platform but keep the choice base the same.

Over time add you have more time to develop choice paths that take into account architectural features and these can be built in.

To start with you will probably end up with one platform that is going perform slightly better out of the box as it is more closely aligned with the schema the developers are using.

True platform parity is achieved when both platforms are both utilised to the best of their abilities.

 

[liolio]

For me parity when speaking of different systems relates to performances, ie framerate / "smoothness" /tearing, not IQ.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Surely platform parity is something that happens over time.

It did on the current generation because it took a while for developers to learn and ins and outs of the PS3. This may not be true for the next generation. If one console has a little more oomph under the hood, but is otherwise easy to develop for, then you dedicate less resources to the more powerful platform, where less optimisation is needed, and more to the other platform.

Then you could have good platform parity out of the gate. I know gamers hate the idea of their hardware not having the most made of it but games is a business. With a few exceptions "good enough" cuts it. Not everybody has the luxury of development of Rockstar, Naughty Dog, Bungie etc.

 

[Jay]

This so called crippling seems to be a thing people tell themselves (and others) to justify why one platform doesn't look better than they think it should.

Platforms aren't out, multi platforms have hardly been shown, yet if they look the same it's down to it being _crippled_ not just because that's the way it is.

It's the big bad corporations forcing developers and studios to go in and _cripple_ a platform.

 

[shredenvain]

I think the whole idea of one company influencing developers on their platform to cripple versions of their software for another system is ridiculous. Is there any example of something like this ever actually occuring?

 

[ERP]

I think the whole idea of one company influencing developers on their platform to cripple versions of their software for another system is ridiculous. Is there any example of something like this ever actually occuring?

I spent 25+ years writing games and I've never heard of it happening.
MS used to have a requirement that if you shipped the XBox version later, all of the features had to be there and there had to be something to differentiate it. But that had nothing to do with performance, or graphics and like very other TCR or TRC it's negotiable, more so if you have a game they actually want on the platform.

 

[Davros]

Platforms aren't out, multi platforms have hardly been shown, yet if they look the same it's down to it being _crippled_ not just because that's the way it is.

Some times it is down to it being crippled and a lot of the time the only explanation is devs just not making the effort. Take Dark souls locked to 1280x720 @30fps on the pc the reason dev incompetence. The game the Wheelman doesnt support a steering wheel thats down to nothing more than not making the effort.

 

[ERP]

Some times it is down to it being crippled and a lot of the time the only explanation is devs just not making the effort. Take Dark souls locked to 1280x720 @30fps on the pc the reason dev incompetence. The game the Wheelman doesnt support a steering wheel thats down to nothing more than not making the effort.

PC versions are different, they are often not done by the core team and often done externally, by a company being paid a fixed amount for the work.

So they tend to be shovel ware. Depending how the original was written, it's possible that changing the frame rate affected the game play and the team porting couldn't spend the time to fix it.

 

[kots]

Funny and useless thread ... "forced parity" didn't happen this generation and won't happen in the next .

 

[Rangers]

Funny and useless thread ... "forced parity" didn't happen this generation and won't happen in the next .

Probably when one console has parity it will be attributed to dirty forced parity and slimy moneyhats. When that console has the better version however, it will be loudly touted as proof of it's vast superior power.

Basically it's a way to cover all bases.

 

[Davros]

it's possible that changing the frame rate affected the game play and the team porting couldn't spend the time to fix it.

Nope, the devs themselves stated that because up until then they had only worked on consoles and they did not know how to program a game that supported more than one resolution.
within 3 days of release a modder had added multiple resolutions and removed the framerate cap

 

[zed]

I spent 25+ years writing games and I've never heard of it happening.

On a similar note have you ever heard of a publisher removing gam content/features etc to be later sold as an 'up grade' not right word I forget the term used

 

[ERP]

On a similar note have you ever heard of a publisher removing gam content/features etc to be later sold as an 'up grade' not right word I forget the term used

I've seen features pushed out of a game, that end up as addons, but it's in an attempt to ship the product. You have to understand how much of most designs never make it into the product.
Most games have limited budgets and time allocated, the game designs are grossly over specced and one of the hardest parts when shipping is cutting features. The "right" way to do it is to cut entire features and concentrate on what's core to the design, more often than not what happens is that people are attached to pieces of the design and it's virtually impossible to cut anything, you end up with half implemented versions of features, some of which get cut after wasting weeks of development time on them, and some are shipped as is.

 

[Averagejoe]

I spent 25+ years writing games and I've never heard of it happening.
MS used to have a requirement that if you shipped the XBox version later, all of the features had to be there and there had to be something to differentiate it. But that had nothing to do with performance, or graphics and like very other TCR or TRC it's negotiable, more so if you have a game they actually want on the platform.

It was reported like 2 years ago that MS had policies which force developers to have on disc parity in all games,if a developer wanted to take advantage of blu-ray extra space and add more maps and stuff it could not.

That would also explain why several games for PS3 had free content but some how it was always in the shape of downloadable content rather than included on the game,even when the content was ready at launch with the game.

 

[RudeCurve]

Probably when one console has parity it will be attributed to dirty forced parity and slimy moneyhats. When that console has the better version however, it will be loudly touted as proof of it's vast superior power.

Basically it's a way to cover all bases.

+1...

 

[joker454]

It was reported like 2 years ago that MS had policies which force developers to have on disc parity in all games,if a developer wanted to take advantage of blu-ray extra space and add more maps and stuff it could not.

Who reported that? Please don't say someone at Gaf, N4g, or other bastions of imbecility...

 

[Bagel seed]

It was reported like 2 years ago that MS had policies which force developers to have on disc parity in all games,if a developer wanted to take advantage of blu-ray extra space and add more maps and stuff it could not.

That would also explain why several games for PS3 had free content but some how it was always in the shape of downloadable content rather than included on the game,even when the content was ready at launch with the game.

EG reported that, and it was true. They had multiple dev sources stating that. Content parity was enforced, unless one version came out later than the other, like Bioshock.