PS3 games late to the show...

[PricklyPete]

This is kind of common sense in a way, but this article includes quotes from EA that the PS3 version of a title comes later sometimes just based on current audience...not just because the devs are not as familiar with it.

ny times article

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yep, with 4 times the PS3 install base in the US it makes sense for EA to put extra resources into pushing the 360 version out first, at the expense of the PS3.

Sony needs to outsell the 360 in the US for more than just one month (July) and move the install bases closer together, or the PS3 will always get the short end of the resource stick.

 

[purbeast0]

thats a pretty bold statement for them to make.

basically they are saying screw the consumers, we just are in it for money!

 

[randay]

most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: randay
most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

I wouldn't go so far to say that it is a cop-out. Sony had to send a "ninja" team (according to them) to get the Unreal Engine 3 up to par and the Exclusives are generally by Sony studios who have gotten copious amounts of help from the Sony Engineers in getting their games optimized. Numerous high-profile developers with tons of talent including John Carmack, Tim Sweeney, Gabe Newell, and others have all stated that the PS3 is harder to develop for. You definitely can't pin someone like John Carmack as a MS fan in any way...so I wouldn't take that as a biased opinion.

Overall, the PS3 is at least the equal if not better to the 360 hardware, but it definitely has a more complex architecture and less support from Sony (poor development tools relative to what MS offers). I'm sure Sony will remedy this over time and developers will start to get the hang of the system...but saying that the "harder to develop for" is a cop-out just doesn't add up in my mind.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
thats a pretty bold statement for them to make.

basically they are saying screw the consumers, we just are in it for money!

This is EA we're talking about you realize.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
thats a pretty bold statement for them to make.

basically they are saying screw the consumers, we just are in it for money!

That's one way to interpret it. Another would be to say that they are trying to make the initial release available to as many consumers as possible, since more consumers have 360s than PS3s. But yeah, obviously it's really about grabbing the bigger pool of money first. Although they are a business after all blah blah blah.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

I dont think this is surprising in the least...PS2 was harder to develop for than the original xbox, but had a larger install base..

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay
most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

Well, if one console is getting more attention from devs, to the point that one of the top games runs at twice the frame rate on the console that costs far less, why shouldnt the masses believe that the 360 is better? Specs by themselves mean absolutely nothing - its whats done with the hardware that counts. If a certain hardware is so easy to work with, and has a bigger install base, that it compels devs to take the time to maximize their efforts for it, the end result will probably be technically superior to the harder to work with console.

By your reasoning, the Jaguar and 3DO were "better" than a lot of other systems when they came out, and we can see how that panned out. PS3 is certainly not the jaguar, but until MS drops the ball or Sony regains their common sense, they'll be trailing, and their 3rd party games will show for it.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, if one console is getting more attention from devs, to the point that one of the top games runs at twice the frame rate on the console that costs far less, why shouldnt the masses believe that the 360 is better? Specs by themselves mean absolutely nothing - its whats done with the hardware that counts. If a certain hardware is so easy to work with, and has a bigger install base, that it compels devs to take the time to maximize their efforts for it, the end result will probably be technically superior to the harder to work with console.

By your reasoning, the Jaguar and 3DO were "better" than a lot of other systems when they came out, and we can see how that panned out. PS3 is certainly not the jaguar, but until MS drops the ball or Sony regains their common sense, they'll be trailing, and their 3rd party games will show for it.

You resemble my remarks.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay
most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

Well, if one console is getting more attention from devs, to the point that one of the top games runs at twice the frame rate on the console that costs far less, why shouldnt the masses believe that the 360 is better? Specs by themselves mean absolutely nothing - its whats done with the hardware that counts. If a certain hardware is so easy to work with, and has a bigger install base, that it compels devs to take the time to maximize their efforts for it, the end result will probably be technically superior to the harder to work with console.

By your reasoning, the Jaguar and 3DO were "better" than a lot of other systems when they came out, and we can see how that panned out. PS3 is certainly not the jaguar, but until MS drops the ball or Sony regains their common sense, they'll be trailing, and their 3rd party games will show for it.

Oblivion looked better on the PS3 than the 360, but it also came out much later. Also, UT3 devs are expressing concerns about limitations with the Xbox DVD9s.

I can see the PS3 being hard to code for, and I can see why developers target the 360 as of now. However, I think the PS3 will pick up steam one the 'video game train' starting later this year is through. I don't think it will be enough to cause the PS3 to catch up by any means, but I foresee more consumers seeing the PS3 as a worthy purchase.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay
most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

Well, if one console is getting more attention from devs, to the point that one of the top games runs at twice the frame rate on the console that costs far less, why shouldnt the masses believe that the 360 is better? Specs by themselves mean absolutely nothing - its whats done with the hardware that counts. If a certain hardware is so easy to work with, and has a bigger install base, that it compels devs to take the time to maximize their efforts for it, the end result will probably be technically superior to the harder to work with console.

By your reasoning, the Jaguar and 3DO were "better" than a lot of other systems when they came out, and we can see how that panned out. PS3 is certainly not the jaguar, but until MS drops the ball or Sony regains their common sense, they'll be trailing, and their 3rd party games will show for it.

Oblivion looked better on the PS3 than the 360, but it also came out much later. Also, UT3 devs are expressing concerns about limitations with the Xbox DVD9s.

I can see the PS3 being hard to code for, and I can see why developers target the 360 as of now. However, I think the PS3 will pick up steam one the 'video game train' starting later this year is through. I don't think it will be enough to cause the PS3 to catch up by any means, but I foresee more consumers seeing the PS3 as a worthy purchase.

I think the PS3 will pick up some steam, although they won't achieve mass market appeal until they can hit the $200 point. This goes for Microsoft too.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay
most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

Well, if one console is getting more attention from devs, to the point that one of the top games runs at twice the frame rate on the console that costs far less, why shouldnt the masses believe that the 360 is better? Specs by themselves mean absolutely nothing - its whats done with the hardware that counts. If a certain hardware is so easy to work with, and has a bigger install base, that it compels devs to take the time to maximize their efforts for it, the end result will probably be technically superior to the harder to work with console.

By your reasoning, the Jaguar and 3DO were "better" than a lot of other systems when they came out, and we can see how that panned out. PS3 is certainly not the jaguar, but until MS drops the ball or Sony regains their common sense, they'll be trailing, and their 3rd party games will show for it.

Oblivion looked better on the PS3 than the 360, but it also came out much later. Also, UT3 devs are expressing concerns about limitations with the Xbox DVD9s.

I can see the PS3 being hard to code for, and I can see why developers target the 360 as of now. However, I think the PS3 will pick up steam one the 'video game train' starting later this year is through. I don't think it will be enough to cause the PS3 to catch up by any means, but I foresee more consumers seeing the PS3 as a worthy purchase.

I think the PS3 will pick up some steam, although they won't achieve mass market appeal until they can hit the $200 point. This goes for Microsoft too.

Like the well selling PS2? Honestly, that probably is when I'm going to get a 360.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Like the well selling PS2? Honestly, that probably is when I'm going to get a 360.

Exactly, because the truth is hardcore gamers are only a fraction of the entire gaming populous. For some one who just plays games every now and then, $400 - $600 is just out of the question.

Hopefully the PS3 can be cost reduced quickly if they ever hope to hit that price. With the last generation seeming to stall out at around $130, I wouldn't be surprised if this generation hits a floor at around $200 (with maybe a $130-$150 core unit).

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
thats a pretty bold statement for them to make.

basically they are saying screw the consumers, we just are in it for money!

You do realize that this is a business that wants to be profitable?

 

[DaveSimmons]

A $200 PS3 Slim with 15-30 GB Flash drive for storage would be nice, but it's probably 2-3 years away from being practical.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: randay
most of us figured this out a while ago, the whole "harder to develop for" is just a copout, seeing all the great looking exclusives that have come out so far. it is common sense though, if you have limited resources, you focus on the product that will generate the most money and return for your time. its just unfortunate that the masses just look at that and relate it to how much better a console is compared to another. when really its the developers decision that makes it that way.

what great exclusives?

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
A $200 PS3 Slim with 15-30 GB Flash drive for storage would be nice, but it's probably 2-3 years away from being practical.

Even in 2-3 years, I don't see that high capacity of flash memory being economical. They could integrate like 4 or 8 gigs with some sort of method of connecting HDDs externally. I don't think the 360 or PS3 will be able to be put into a form factor that small, the 360's box is really too small for it's own good. I think the 360 would have been a lot better off if it were about the size of the PS3.

I'm curious if Microsoft will ever alter the case of the 360 down the road. It's already pretty small, but product design is a big deal for Microsoft. It isn't something they do, so because of they they usually hire an outside firm to design their products, and I have a feeling in the case of the 360, they piced a design and told the engineers to cram everything in, whereas with the PS3 it seems more likely that the engineers told Sony they need so much space, and then their design teams work around that.

 

[Adn4n]

The IGN PS3 podcast called bs on EA as well after they claimed that the PS3 version running at 30fps and 720p instead of 60fps and 1080p.