Game Parity Syndrome

[ERP]

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.

Yes I saw the interview, but it was misunderstood, as I understand the requirement, if you ship the Xbox vision later you can't ship it with missing features, there is no requirement for the same framerate or the same polygon counts.

And as I said all these TRC/TCR's are negotiable just depends on how much leverage you have.

Back in the days of the original XBox, those products were treated more as ports, than as first class SKU's so they often could have been much better. But I've never had management come to me and say we need to leave out this feature because of an MS requirement for parity, nor have I ever crippled a games performance on a platform to reach parity.

There is a certain element of LCD when it comes to actual art assets, but that's driven more by financial constraints than anything else, even there if a platform could run a better shader, I'd use the cycles and do it.

 

[DrJay24]

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.

You forgot one possibility, with respect to FFXIII you said...

SE really did a bad job because they feel loyalty to Sony/ anti-360 (sabotage of some mild sort). They needed a 360 port for business reasons, but did not put great effort in (tinfoil hat time).

 

[Davros]

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

Well people have been sold contents already on the disc as dlc (capcom i believe is famous for this)

 

[Bagel seed]

You forgot one possibility, with respect to FFXIII you said...

The post history of people can be amusing. Sometimes I take a peek, but just silently judge mostly

 

[Delta9]

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.

What other excuse would there be except for lazy developers? The difference in specs makes it clear parity shouldn't happen.

 

[rokkerkory]

Both next-gen consoles offer a great canvas/platform to build games on... I would think devs are super excited to leverage each consoles' strengths to the limit if given time. Maybe X1 versions will have better sound and use of motion controls to better game play... maybe PS4 will have higher resolutions/stable fps?

Can't wait to find out.

 

[SlimJim]

Let's say one platform has vastly superior exclusive games, especially tech wise. For example:
Off-the-map, Big-Tourism, Not-well-Known (or -Famous), The Last People, King of Warfare and so on
Is the multiplatform developer going to give up and not use the extra hardware to compete with the first party offerings? Just because another platform is kind of crippeled in a lot of regards, be it compute power, ROPs, CUs, memory bandwidth or drivers?

I think not, I believe even the most simplest of ports come november, will show a distinct advantage, and an even bigger advantage in the future.

edit: Some devs last gen were unable to optimise for complex architectures.
But this time it will literally be like this:

Okay, we are done with the lowest edition, now for the best version... let's see oh they were both X86, and both have the same shader levels?? Okay let's dial up the particles.... okay cool the framerate stays stable. Hmm, it says here the bandwidth is still not chocked.. okay let's remove the 30hz lock... cool 40-50 fps. Hmm, we still have 2 weeks. What the hell, let's reshuffle some resources and have 1 CU extra help with the particles. Cool! 60fps.. maybe increase texture resolution? Oh no good. AF filtering level? okay there must be a bug because the framerate doesn't come down even at 32x compared to the initial 8x
Okay let's just leave it at that.

 

[dobwal]

What other excuse would there be except for lazy developers? The difference in specs makes it clear parity shouldn't happen.

Lazy devs? Please!!! Lazy devs would of probably led to larger visuals gap between multiplatforms titles of the PS3 and 360. Laziness encourages you to accept performances differences between hardware not encourages you to overcome them.

When the consoles presents similar levels of power, the natural tendency is toward parity unless one holds allegiance to one platform over the other.

Making the great greater and leaving the less than stellar to languish is not a natural response in production. Its like a triathlete being a great swimmer but a poor runner simply encouraging that disparity by continually working hard on swimming and accepting their poor results as runner. Most would rearrange their schedule with the emphasis of improving the running ability because they simply want to be strong in all facets of their sport.

I am sure there are developers who take pride in the parity that exists between their 360/PS3 multiplatform titles. Simply because they were able to overcome issues that created the initial disparity. I am pretty sure some devs used the SPEs in novel ways because they were motivated by the disparity between the two platforms at the time in favor of the 360.

"Ohh, look at that PS4 first party exclusive. We are going to put all our attention on our PS4 port to make sure its competitive."

Nevermind the fact that the competing platform has tens of millions of units that makes parity with first party titles pretty irrevelant when third party titles have much greater access to the overall userbase.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

"Ohh, look at that PS4 first party exclusive. We are going to put all our attention on our PS4 port to make sure its competitive."

Nevermind the fact that the competing platform has tens of millions of units that makes parity with first party titles pretty irrevelant when third party titles have much greater access to the overall userbase.

I don't think companies view the potential market like this. Take for example Battlefield 4 on PlayStation 4. If you own a PS4, BF4 is competing not only with other multiplats like Call of Duty: Dogs, but exclusives like Killzone Shadow Fall. If all three offer good gameplay but KSF looks vastly better, both BF4 and COD5 stand to lose a sale to KSF. Not everybody can afford all the games they want.

So artificially maintaining technical parity when your [platform exclusive] competitors aren't, would be a risky proposition. We all know graphics are a factor that can sell games.

 

[function]

What other excuse would there be except for lazy developers? The difference in specs makes it clear parity shouldn't happen.

You're right. Xbone games should have higher frame rates because of more powerful CPU and audio offload. If they have similar framerates then it must me lazy devs, right? Same quality audio, lazy devs snoozing right?

What if they gimp 1Bone games down to only have as many polygons as the PS4 can handle. Lazy devs, right?

[/sarcasm]

The PS4's advantage is probably best expressed in multiplatforms in terms of higher resolutions or in dynamic resolutions that drop less than they do on bowne. Aside from that in the general case I wouldn't be expecting too much difference.

 

[dobwal]

I don't think companies view the potential market like this. Take for example Battlefield 4 on PlayStation 4. If you own a PS4, BF4 is competing not only with other multiplats like Call of Duty: Dogs, but exclusives like Killzone Shadow Fall. If all three offer good gameplay but KSF looks vastly better, both BF4 and COD5 stand to lose a sale to KSF. Not everybody can afford all the games they want.

So artificially maintaining technical parity when your [platform exclusive] competitors aren't, would be a risky proposition. We all know graphics are a factor that can sell games.

Third party titles aren't exclusive for a reason. They care about maximizing market availability across platforms. You can say that Gears and KZ look better than COD all you want, but what Activision will ultimately point out the total units sales across both the 360 and PS3.

An platform exclusive gets the benefit of being allocated the total resources of the project. Multiplatforms don't get that benefit and pubs ultimately want the resources to be devoted in a way that leads to the overall benefit of the game not one platform specific port in an effort to look as good as some first party.

Plus its not artificially maintaining technical parity. That denotes gimping one over the other. Would you consider a 360 title gimped simply because a developer spent extra resources to push the SPEs performance to the point that it allowed the PS3 title to reach a quality similar to the 360 port? I don't.

Most have a goal in mind in terms of visual quality of the finished quality. If one hardware gets there faster or easier there nothing artificial about pouring additional resources into the other hardware to get it to obtain the same goal.

These games aren't someone's pet project. What matter the most is how these games sell not how they look. Obviously visual matter but its not like you can tightly correlate the top five selling games on any platform with their visual quality versus other titles.

I'd bet when it comes to multiplatform titles of two similarly performing hardware, most of the motivation to push the hardware comes from competing against the visuals of the other team not some outside first party exclusive.

 

[SlimJim]

Lazy devs? Please!!! Lazy devs would of probably led to larger visuals gap between multiplatforms titles of the PS3 and 360. Laziness encourages you to accept performances differences between hardware not encourages you to overcome them.

When the consoles presents similar levels of power, the natural tendency is toward parity unless one holds allegiance to one platform over the other.

Making the great greater and leaving the less than stellar to languish is not a natural response in production. Its like a triathlete being a great swimmer but a poor runner simply encouraging that disparity by continually working hard on swimming and accepting their poor results as runner. Most would rearrange their schedule with the emphasis of improving the running ability because they simply want to be strong in all facets of their sport.

I am sure there are developers who take pride in the parity that exists between their 360/PS3 multiplatform titles. Simply because they were able to overcome issues that created the initial disparity. I am pretty sure some devs used the SPEs in novel ways because they were motivated by the disparity between the two platforms at the time in favor of the 360.

"Ohh, look at that PS4 first party exclusive. We are going to put all our attention on our PS4 port to make sure its competitive."

Nevermind the fact that the competing platform has tens of millions of units that makes parity with first party titles pretty irrevelant when third party titles have much greater access to the overall userbase.

That was the case last gen, when the Xbox had a +1 year head start in every single region, not to mention being hundreds of dollars cheaper for every SKU.
Suffice to say, that won't be the case this gen.

This time, imagine a dominant platform where you have the best developers in the industry, competing for the most visually stunning graphics ever conceived. You still think 3rd party developers will trying to get parity between the two platforms?

If sales stay behind, I even see a Wii-U situation where the Xbox One will receive a 6th generation up-port instead of a PS4 downgrade edition.

 

[zupallinere]

I'd bet when it comes to multiplatform titles of two similarly performing hardware, most of the motivation to push the hardware comes from competing against the visuals of the other team not some outside first party exclusive.

Reasonable but it could also depend on the game and whether or not a different dev house is being used for each port, especially if they are just contracted out.

Trying to be on-time and on-budget could be the biggest factor in general vs tossing resources at the weaker system to gain some form of parity but again it depends on what is in the contract or what the sales situation is like.

Added: An independent dev team might want to show their chops as a way to drum up business as an example.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Third party titles aren't exclusive for a reason. They care about maximizing market availability across platforms. You can say that Gears and KZ look better than COD all you want, but what Activision will ultimately point out the total units sales across both the 360 and PS3.

COD is probably a bad example because it sells heaps regardless of technical merits, other games do not. And of course the combined market of two, or more, platforms is obviously larger than one of those platforms in isolation but if one platform version is lacking, it's more likely going to be by that platforms owners for platform exclusives which are better. Unless they own both consoles of course, where the option to buy the optimal version exists.

An platform exclusive gets the benefit of being allocated the total resources of the project. Multiplatforms don't get that benefit and pubs ultimately want the resources to be devoted in a way that leads to the overall benefit of the game not one platform specific port in an effort to look as good as some first party.

I'd argue it's far less about resources dedicated to development and much more about designing a game and engine that takes advantage of all of the strengths and none of the weaknesses of a particular platform. The moment you go cross-platform it's a case of limiting design and technology by LCD.

Plus its not artificially maintaining technical parity. That denotes gimping one over the other.

You can achieve technical parity without gimping by allocating resources to optimise one version over another.

Would you consider a 360 title gimped simply because a developer spent extra resources to push the SPEs performance to the point that it allowed the PS3 title to reach a quality similar to the 360 port? I don't.

No, because PS3 games often need assistance from the SPEs to balance the inadequacies of RSX compared to Xenos. This is optimizing the PS3 version, not gimping the 360 version.

Most have a goal in mind in terms of visual quality of the finished quality. If one hardware gets there faster or easier there nothing artificial about pouring additional resources into the other hardware to get it to obtain the same goal.

I posted exactly this above a few days ago.

These games aren't someone's pet project. What matter the most is how these games sell not how they look. Obviously visual matter but its not like you can tightly correlate the top five selling games on any platform with their visual quality versus other titles.

Actually, you probably could. What was the last chart topping game you saw with terrible visuals (art, technical execution etc)? Some might argue Minecraft but the graphical style was a deliberate decision.

I'd bet when it comes to multiplatform titles of two similarly performing hardware, most of the motivation to push the hardware comes from competing against the visuals of the other team not some outside first party exclusive.

I'm sure there is a degree of that and healthy competition of this nature is good, but the publisher only needs a sale, the platform is less important. That makes the dynamics of each platform's userbase, buying habits and market dynamic more important than the other platforms.

 

[Inuhanyou]

BF4 is a great example. Dice has already confirmed that they plan to have BF4 operate at the same framerate and resolution on the PS4 and Xbox one.

 

[warb]

BF4 is a great example. Dice has already confirmed that they plan to have BF4 operate at the same framerate and resolution on the PS4 and Xbox one.

It's an example of a 60fps game being 60fps.

 

[ShadowRunner]

BF4 is a great example. Dice has already confirmed that they plan to have BF4 operate at the same framerate and resolution on the PS4 and Xbox one.

That doesnt mean there wont be differences elsewhere. Many cross platform games this gen ran at the same res and target framerate but looked different in terms of effects quality, AA, AF, lighting, textures, LOD, transparencies, shadows etc.

Also a target framerate is exactly that, see Black Ops on PS3