Multiplatform considerations of Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony

[Prophecy2k]

This thread is quickly getting derailed by talk on game sales, platform sales and other stuff that may make a nice spin-off thread (mods?) but isn't at all relevant for the topic at hand.

Function, I'm gonna try and ICE this point about the relevance of multiplat title performance on their next-gen system and assert that so long as both choose to go with an architecture that won't piss off devs (i.e. inevitably more PC-like), which I'm convinced both Sony & MS will do, then I see the issue of "multiplatform game performance" as a problem mostly solved.

The clicher will be dev tools/support, and the richness of OS-level features included in the SDK (e.g. game installs, in-game chat, invites, online infrastructure etc) that each plaform holder will be able to provide. I expect a major overhaul of online features implimented at an OS level next gen, so that devs will literally be able to focus on building their game code and effectively "plugging it in".

As a side note, Sony could choose a beefy ATI/NV/LRB GPU (avec eDRAM) and CELL2 with a couple of more general purpose cores for the PPEs for their next system.

That could allow for multiplatform devs to simply code to the GPU and gen-purpose cores (allowing for easy portability of game code) in the same fashion as they would for xbox... those who feel upto it could utilise the additional SPEs on the CELL2 to assist in offloading work off the GPU freeing up GPU resource... and would help BC also given that PS3 code would almost invariably run very well on the "familiar" setup...

If Sony could do that, keeping within their silicon budget while remaining performant with MS' box then that would be a win-win for everyone.... Right?

(Don't worry Mr Luna, I know I'm fantasising again )

 

[Acert93]

IMO Microsoft has spent more time chasing after Nintendo and improving their services this gen than trying to out do Sony in technical excellence...at least in games that is. I really think it will play a huge role in the hardware we see next gen.

Same reply as above. Seriously, your entire arguement is a strawman as you don't mean technical excellence.

What you really mean is, "MS's internal studios aren't focused on competiting with Sony's top flagship titles, KZ2 and Uncharted 2, in the visual category."

True, MS doesn't have a development studio that is as focused or dedicated to visuals as GG, ND, id, Crytek, PD, etc are to visuals.

But that doesn't mean MS has butt ugly games, either. Were PGR3/4 dog ugly? How about Kameo? Fable 2? Name 3 games with 4 player splitscreen and theater (video recording) with better graphics than Halo 3.

As for chasing Nintendo, I don't think you are playing MS's titles either. If you look across the board at MS's big titles you see a pretty clear theme: MS's is really focused on online play and community tools. While they aren't forcing this on every title (e.g. Mass Effect) you look at their titles and what they have been trying to do it is pretty clear they have a strong technological investment in online gaming and design their games to cater to this criteria.

Sometimes this really works well (Halo, Forza, Fable) other times not so much (Banjo, Shadowrun).

You can bet right now if Uncharted or Killzone if they included 4 player splitscreen for multiplayer and splitscreen for single system coop game design and technology *(or development time) would have had to be altered.

While I don't think there is a direct relation, I find it interesting that the general purpose Xenon is used for more general purpose coding/features where as the SIMD centric SPEs are being utilized more by exclusive devs for graphics work. But I think this more reflects the real philosophies of Sony and MS--they want their hardware to do different things for developers. They design philosophies reflect this.

MS is chasing after Nintendo no more so than Sony is (do I really need to give examples where Sony is aiming at casuals as well in terms of software and hardware??).

So if we want to talk about philosophies impacting HW selection I think it isn't so much chasing Nintendo but picking hardware that matches their vision for developers. Indeed I think the PS3 and 360 reflect competiting visions. The question is how will they use potentially similar budgets next gen.

Budgets being even, I don't think MS changes a ton. I think Sony will take a long, hard, look as I don't think developers were too keen on their overall choices given their budget this time around.

 

[function]

This is pure assumption and can be countered easily by looking into Wii games and sales of their platform. Should I elaborate on this?

Possibly best not to given, given the thread topic.

Remember that my assertion is that if Sony (or MS) want to market their next system as a technically impressive gaming powerhouse (as they both did - particularly Sony - this generation), it's important not to be let down by multiplatform games, even if that means giving up some theoretical performance.

Platform exclusives are safe from direct comparisions and can always be touted as "the most graphics ever! Only possible on platform X!" even if it's not strictly true.

The whole point of "people buy consoles by comparing their graphics/technical execution" is easily countered by Wii.

I said that getting superior (or less crummy) versions of the software that someone wants can influence the platform that they chose to buy. I went on to clarify, repeatedly, that this is only one factor that may influence peoples purchasing decisions, but one that is particularly relevant to this thread given that hardware can influence multiplatform games.

It's not that you don't want, you want competent people, if they can get competent and produce good results, why not? This is a nature of filter.

I still don't really understand why you think it's good to have a platform that makes most developers' games worse than they need to be. In what way does this "filter" really benefit consumers?

There is no such thing as "killer app" this generation (or next), the time of killer apps is over.

I'm not so sure about that. Halo 3 and GTA 4 both saw impressive sales spikes, and Wii Fit is a hardware driving monster!

 

[Dr. Nick]

snip.

I did say chasing after Nintendo and improving their services. Basically anything connected to the Xbox Live service would fall in to the improving their services category to go along with all the stuff Microsoft has been doing to try a grab the casual market since the Wii's release. The fact is Sony is trying to improve their services to and trying to grab the casual market but at the same time they still have more showcases than Microsoft which plays a role into how the system is perceived. With Sony its plain as day with Microsoft you have to have it use it to clearly see it. With that said I still think Nintendo will influence Microsoft more that Sony when it comes to their next machine. In other words Microsoft will still make a system developers can easily develop for but I'm not expecting them to even attempt to have the most powerful (usually expensive) hardware in the console market. Nintendo has "proven" that you don't need it.

 

[Acert93]

Outside your personal opinion, can you show since 2005 what games were considered "showcases" and how this was received by the general public?

I think you will find Gears, Mass Effect, GTAIV, and Call of Duty MW2 and the like are considered at the top tier.

As for most powerful ... based on what developers are getting out of the "most powerful hardware" as a general rule in regards to IQ and performance, I don't think your insinuation holds much water. The most powerful (flops)/expensive system isn't living up to the billing as a general rule.

Unless you want to hand select your own "showcases" and dismiss any other opinion.

Ps- And I think you see Sony focusing on certain aspects because they sold their soul in 2005 to CGI and RSX was gonna need a lot of help to match Xenos and that just happened to be something SPEs would be good at. I think what we are seeing is arbitrary version of "technical excellence" and "showcases" that are revisionist and pretty much ignore the general quality of multiplatform software and the nuances of various studios. You could just as well spin it, "Sony couldn't get coop or splitscreen in KZ2 without sacrificing graphics" or "they couldn't do 60Hz." It is all really arbitrary.

 

[function]

This same story applies to Halo 3. The renderer and animation blah blah blah Bugnie/MS are lazy and don't invest technically in their title. Yet their matchmaking, level editor, sharing tools, Bungie.net, theater, custom game editor, 4 player coop, 4 player MP splitscreen on/offline, etc are trivial investments that speak nothing of "technical excellence.

I agree with the whole post but I think this makes a particularly good point, and is actually something to draw some cheer from.

While Halo, Forza and their ilk may not be getting the same kind of forum attention and praise that games with more impressive or hyped renderers do, what they do get is the playtime. Most of the hundreds of thousands of people hooked on playing these games online probably haven't ever given the interface and features any thought, but they are probably more heavily (and positively) influenced by them than any renderer.

Function, I'm gonna try and ICE this point about the relevance of multiplat title performance on their next-gen system and assert that so long as both choose to go with an architecture that won't piss off devs (i.e. inevitably more PC-like), which I'm convinced both Sony & MS will do, then I see the issue of "multiplatform game performance" as a problem mostly solved.

For the most part I agree, but there's also the niggling issue that whoever isn't the base/target platform would benefit from being able to comfortably run a port that hasn't been optimised for that platform. This is simply to avoid big frame rate dips and lots of tearing. I know most people won't care or notice, but if you're marketing yourself as an expensive, next gen, high end console I think it's got to be worth it, if only to keep Eurogamer quiet.

I fully agree on the importance of dev tools, libraries and standardised OS level features btw.

 

[Dr. Nick]

snip.

check PM

 

[Acert93]

check PM

And I still think your PM point is wrong. Essentially you are argueing 2 main points about the "perception" that Sony has has the most powerful hardware in every respect:

(1) Only examining exclusive to determine platform "power" and

(2) Restricting "power" to technicalities of rendering.

In regards to the first, the nebulous "average consumer" isn't going to compare just exclusives. They also probably haven't seen most games on every system (just look to see how Uncharted 1 sales compared to CoD4 to GTAIV for market penetration). The multiplatform titles have a pretty loud voice due to their sales and market/mindshare they demand.

As for the 2nd point, these nebulous average newbs aren't grading a platform on did they use a CSM at 512x512 resolution or VSM at 1024x1024 or if there is AA artifacting in the HDR or not.

This just isn't how reviewers, or average "hardcore" gamers think. Just look at the outlash here at the "10" scores MW2 received from some press for graphics. Even if you were right that every PS3 title from Heavenly Sword, LBP, MGS4, GT5Prologue, KZ, Uncharted, Resistance, and the Duck Demo blow everything MS has done in regards to technical excellence and proved that the PS3 had better hardware, hands down, and any multiplatform title that didn't toe the line was just lazy devs, that isn't necessarily how it is percieved in the real world.

Instead MS has the press constantly mentioning, "The 360 version is cleaner... more stable framerate... etc" on major titles like GTAIV and CoD4. You have major development studios like Valve, id Software, and Epic mentioning issues with the PS3. And if you follow the industry (like those here) you would be pretty dogmatic to say the PS3 was superior all around--especially when developers like Crytek actually give render times for their technologies and have to hack the PS3 versions quality to match the 360.

The "truth" and "perception" are not so clear. In fact, I would say that yes, graphics dictate a lot of perception of what is the most powerful from a casual perspective--but the catch is an average consumer considers great art as the primary "eye candy."

 

[Acert93]

=> But maybe you guys would define "technical excellence".

=> The explain how the HW needed for technical excellence is (a) needed for Sony exclusives and (b) not needed for MS titles.

 

[Boxercide]

This same story applies to Halo 3. The renderer and animation blah blah blah Bugnie/MS are lazy and don't invest technically in their title. Yet their matchmaking, level editor, sharing tools, Bungie.net, theater, custom game editor, 4 player coop, 4 player MP splitscreen on/offline, etc are trivial investments that speak nothing of "technical excellence.

Uncharted 2 does theater, has a website, 3 player co-op, etc. To say nothing of the fact that it runs in 720p and has AA. I'm not sure what your point is?

IMHO, nothing about Halo says "technical excellence". So again, I'm not sure why you're trying to hold it up as some shining example that sacrificing IQ but adding a bunch of extraneous features that most of the people who play will never use as "technical excellence".

 

[function]

IMHO, nothing about Halo says "technical excellence". So again, I'm not sure why you're trying to hold it up as some shining example that sacrificing IQ but adding a bunch of extraneous features that most of the people who play will never use as "technical excellence".

1) I can't see the part where he did this. Could you quote the part where he did?
2) How does popularity of features relate to technical excellence required to implement them successfully?

Thanks.

[Edit, and back on topic] I personally feel that features such as 2, 3 or 4 player co-op, level editors, personalisation and customisation, community stat tracking etc etc do add real value to a game and do take skill to implement well. Any resources that you can throw at value enhancing features rather than optimisation is a bonus, and at some level this tradeoff will have to be made.

It seems reasonable that, given finite development resources, at some point the realities of working with the hardware you're developing on will influence this tradeoff.

 

[Toaddio]

How did a thread about the next generation become a pissing contest about the current generation?

The Atari 2600 is the bomb. How many of you knew that Double Dragon was released for the 2600?

 

[Acert93]

How did a thread about the next generation become a pissing contest about the current generation?

It derailed into the nebulous claim that MS won't need cutting edge hardware as their current titles show they have no "technical excellence" and no "showcase" titles as proof MS wouldn't persue cutting edge HW