Xbox 360 and PS3 can die!

[Carfax83]

How long will it take for the Xbox 360 and PS3 to become completely obsolete and irrelevant?

Like many of you, I have been monitoring this year's E3 event, and I'm surprised that despite the launch of the PS4 and Xbox One this year, there are still PLENTY of games in development for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

I find that worrisome, because no matter how skilled or creative developers are at hiding the targeting of the lowest common denominator, it always rears it's head eventually.

Take Far Cry 3 for instance. Great story, massive sandbox with tons of stuff to do. It's amazing that such a massive game can even run on the 360 and PS3 with their meager resources..

But when I play the game on my computer, I begin to understand how that's possible. First off, anyone that's ever played Far Cry 3 will tell you of the horrible object pop in. It doesn't matter how powerful your system is, you will always experience glaring object pop in; and I'm talking about no more than a few feet from the main character. I've scoured the internet looking for ways to increase draw distance, but it appears the draw distance is hard coded into the engine.

Why? Because it was designed for the lowest fucking common denominator at the deepest level. Same thing with stuttering.. Why does Far Cry 3 stutter on the most powerful rigs? If you ever check the system memory usage, you will see that the game uses anywhere from 600 to 700 MB of memory; even on Ultra settings.

That's AWFUL! A game as massive in scope as Far Cry 3 running on less than 1GB of system memory is freaking ridiculous. A game with such a large sandbox should be using at least 1.5GB of system memory for storing game data for the fastest access..

But because the engine was designed for memory deficient consoles, it uses the least amount of memory it can get away with.....even in a machine like mine that has 16GB of memory.

You see the same thing with Metro Last Light in terms of system memory usage, but the negative effects are much easier to hide because MLL with it's mostly subterranean setting is basically the opposite of a large sandbox title like Far Cry 3.

That's not to say that all multiplatform games are like this. The best game engine developers like Crytek and DICE know how to make game engines that scale very well according to hardware. Crysis 3 is practically a next gen game in and of itself. It's one of the few games out there that can actually use a hex core CPU efficiently, and it will also use quite a bit of VRAM and system memory (I've seen it go as high as 1.5GB personally) resulting in very smooth gameplay and nearly undetectable object pop in.

Unfortunately, games like Crysis 3 are an exception however..

So we have all of these new games that APPEAR to be next gen, but they are not because as long as the games are developed with the 360 and PS3 in mind, they will always be suboptimal in terms of scope, complexity, gameplay and graphical presentation.

The only true next gen title that I saw personally, was the Witcher 3, and that will not be available for Xbox 360 and PS3. :thumbsup:

 

[KaOTiK]

They will both receive a lot of games till the end of next year probably and then mostly junk will be all that is released on them for the reminding 1-2 years. Too large of install bases for publishers to ignore, especially when the new gen will have small install bases to start.

Some games are just skipping them though and going straight to the new gen. But we will see lots of cross gen titles for a bit still because there are a lot of big name titles coming out.

 

[gorcorps]

Odd, I've definitely noticed things in farcry 3 but none of them are what you're taking about. I've never had stuttering though I've seen some people complain about it. It's definitely not universal though so isn't a part of game design like you're inferring.

Also, I didn't notice much pop in on FC3. Bioshock Infinite was much worse at this and it's nowhere near the scope that FC3 is.

 

[Carfax83]

They will both receive a lot of games till the end of next year probably and then mostly junk will be all that is released on them for the reminding 1-2 years. Too large of install bases for publishers to ignore, especially when the new gen will have small install bases to start.

Some games are just skipping them though and going straight to the new gen. But we will see lots of cross gen titles for a bit still because there are a lot of big name titles coming out.

That's a good point. With so many Xbox 360s and PS3s still around, it would be foolish for developers to completely ignore that install base from a monetary perspective.

 

[Carfax83]

Odd, I've definitely noticed things in farcry 3 but none of them are what you're taking about. I've never had stuttering though I've seen some people complain about it. It's definitely not universal though so isn't a part of game design like you're inferring.

Also, I didn't notice much pop in on FC3. Bioshock Infinite was much worse at this and it's nowhere near the scope that FC3 is.

Far Cry 3 has insane pop in due to the engine, which as I said, minimizes RAM usage due to over aggressive console optimization. It's mostly noticeable when you're driving or especially, flying around on the hang glider. If you look out in the distance, you'll see all manner of objects popping in.

That's definitely a universal problem, as it's how the engine is designed.

As for stuttering, it's a minor problem that doesn't really occur frequently. I think it's because I'm still using hard drives and the game uses such a miniscule amount of RAM, as ordinarily, the RAM would mitigate the much slower hard drive..

Using an SSD instead of a HDD would probably fix it. Still, most of the performance issues with this game can be traced to the low amount of RAM that it uses.

No game with such a large playable area should utilize only 700 MB of memory. That's preposterous!

 

[gorcorps]

Far Cry 3 has insane pop in due to the engine, which as I said, minimizes RAM usage due to over aggressive console optimization. It's mostly noticeable when you're driving or especially, flying around on the hang glider. If you look out in the distance, you'll see all manner of objects popping in.

That's definitely a universal problem, as it's how the engine is designed.

As for stuttering, it's a minor problem that doesn't really occur frequently. I think it's because I'm still using hard drives and the game uses such a miniscule amount of RAM, as ordinarily, the RAM would mitigate the much slower hard drive..

Using an SSD instead of a HDD would probably fix it. Still, most of the performance issues with this game can be traced to the low amount of RAM that it uses.

No game with such a large playable area should utilize only 700 MB of memory. That's preposterous!

Ah, I rarely drive in FC3 so maybe I've just never noticed it

 

[lilrayray69]

Not sure how you never noticed pop in with FC3, even on Ultra it was pretty bad.

But I imagine games will still be made for this generation until mid 2014 to the end of 2014. But most major games will be developed for the PS4/XBone from the start of 2014. The last games to be made for this generation will be sports games and maybe some kid sort of games.

How long will it take for the Xbox 360 and PS3 to become completely obsolete and irrelevant?

I don't think they'll be completely obsolete for some time. There are still people playin on their Xbox/PS2, N64/PS1, etc....and with neither the PS4 or Xbox One being backwards compatible plenty of people will keep their old PS3 to play PS3/PS2/PS1 games. Though I'm guessing you didn't mean that question so literally. But I have an original PS3 that is fully backwards compatible and regardless of if I get a PS4/Xbone I'll probably keep it

 

[Mushkins]

What you're griping about has very little to do with the hardware of those systems, and a whole lot to do with the choices made by the publishers and development studios. Porting the game from 360 to PS3 or from console to PC is *not* as simple as just clicking a "compile for PS3" button. The fundamental architecture of each one of these systems is different, and the engine essentially needs to be written from the ground up for each one. That's why most of these studios license engines someone else wrote (Unreal, RAGE, etc) instead of writing their own, and as such their games are subject to the limitations of those engines.

Crysis 3 is probably the *worst* example of a multiplatform game you could have picked to make this argument, as it was essentially a CryTek tech demo saying "See!!! we can make our super awesome high requirement PC game run on consoles and look great too!!!!" And as such the PC version was essentially a bad console port. However, there's tons more multiplatform games that *do* handle the PC version very well and whatever technical issues or limitations you see in them have absolutely nothing to do with the console versions whatsoever.

That being said, developers aren't going to magically stop making games for 360 and PS3 the day the new systems are on sale. Between what's already in development, whats already planned, and games localized from other regions that were already released, we're going to be seeing PS3 and 360 games for a while yet, and that's not a bad thing that makes the new systems and new games "teh sux." They were still releasing PS2 games just a few years ago.

 

[pontifex]

How long will it take for the Xbox 360 and PS3 to become completely obsolete and irrelevant?

Like many of you, I have been monitoring this year's E3 event, and I'm surprised that despite the launch of the PS4 and Xbox One this year, there are still PLENTY of games in development for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

I find that worrisome, because no matter how skilled or creative developers are at hiding the targeting of the lowest common denominator, it always rears it's head eventually.

Take Far Cry 3 for instance. Great story, massive sandbox with tons of stuff to do. It's amazing that such a massive game can even run on the 360 and PS3 with their meager resources..

But when I play the game on my computer, I begin to understand how that's possible. First off, anyone that's ever played Far Cry 3 will tell you of the horrible object pop in. It doesn't matter how powerful your system is, you will always experience glaring object pop in; and I'm talking about no more than a few feet from the main character. I've scoured the internet looking for ways to increase draw distance, but it appears the draw distance is hard coded into the engine.

Why? Because it was designed for the lowest fucking common denominator at the deepest level. Same thing with stuttering.. Why does Far Cry 3 stutter on the most powerful rigs? If you ever check the system memory usage, you will see that the game uses anywhere from 600 to 700 MB of memory; even on Ultra settings.

That's AWFUL! A game as massive in scope as Far Cry 3 running on less than 1GB of system memory is freaking ridiculous. A game with such a large sandbox should be using at least 1.5GB of system memory for storing game data for the fastest access..

But because the engine was designed for memory deficient consoles, it uses the least amount of memory it can get away with.....even in a machine like mine that has 16GB of memory.

You see the same thing with Metro Last Light in terms of system memory usage, but the negative effects are much easier to hide because MLL with it's mostly subterranean setting is basically the opposite of a large sandbox title like Far Cry 3.

That's not to say that all multiplatform games are like this. The best game engine developers like Crytek and DICE know how to make game engines that scale very well according to hardware. Crysis 3 is practically a next gen game in and of itself. It's one of the few games out there that can actually use a hex core CPU efficiently, and it will also use quite a bit of VRAM and system memory (I've seen it go as high as 1.5GB personally) resulting in very smooth gameplay and nearly undetectable object pop in.

Unfortunately, games like Crysis 3 are an exception however..

So we have all of these new games that APPEAR to be next gen, but they are not because as long as the games are developed with the 360 and PS3 in mind, they will always be suboptimal in terms of scope, complexity, gameplay and graphical presentation.

The only true next gen title that I saw personally, was the Witcher 3, and that will not be available for Xbox 360 and PS3. :thumbsup:

is someone new to pc gaming and/or console ports?

 

[Barfo]

I think games are still being developed for the PS2...now there's your lowest denominator.

 

[smackababy]

I think games are still being developed for the PS2...now there's your lowest denominator.

I'd argue games being developed for Facebook would be lower.

 

[Fallen Kell]

They will both receive a lot of games till the end of next year probably and then mostly junk will be all that is released on them for the reminding 1-2 years. Too large of install bases for publishers to ignore, especially when the new gen will have small install bases to start.

Some games are just skipping them though and going straight to the new gen. But we will see lots of cross gen titles for a bit still because there are a lot of big name titles coming out.

Add on the fact that some games take 3+ years to develop, well before the announcements of the new consoles.

 

[KeithP]

What you're griping about has very little to do with the hardware of those systems, and a whole lot to do with the choices made by the publishers and development studios.

Yep...and now we are pretty much done here.

-KeithP

 

[Carfax83]

What you're griping about has very little to do with the hardware of those systems, and a whole lot to do with the choices made by the publishers and development studios. Porting the game from 360 to PS3 or from console to PC is *not* as simple as just clicking a "compile for PS3" button. The fundamental architecture of each one of these systems is different, and the engine essentially needs to be written from the ground up for each one. That's why most of these studios license engines someone else wrote (Unreal, RAGE, etc) instead of writing their own, and as such their games are subject to the limitations of those engines.

Did you even read my post? You're basically repeating what I wrote.. What did I say concerning the Far Cry 3 engine (aka Dunia 2) being designed expressly with console memory deficiency in mind?

That's what I'm griping about! The engine is designed from a very low level to minimize RAM usage and therefore does not scale properly with PC hardware. Ubisoft essentially designed the engine for consoles first, and then tried to upscale it for PC which is really the wrong way to go about it because it's always easier to downscale than to upscale.

Crysis 3 is probably the *worst* example of a multiplatform game you could have picked to make this argument, as it was essentially a CryTek tech demo saying "See!!! we can make our super awesome high requirement PC game run on consoles and look great too!!!!" And as such the PC version was essentially a bad console port.

This is crazy talk. How is Crysis 3 the "worst" example of a multiplatform game, when it scales so wonderfully on PC hardware? The CryEngine 3 is a marvelous engine, and the fact that a graphically intensive game like Crysis 3 it can be scaled down to the 360 and PS3 is an amazing technical feat.

However, there's tons more multiplatform games that *do* handle the PC version very well and whatever technical issues or limitations you see in them have absolutely nothing to do with the console versions whatsoever.

Name some please..

That being said, developers aren't going to magically stop making games for 360 and PS3 the day the new systems are on sale. Between what's already in development, whats already planned, and games localized from other regions that were already released, we're going to be seeing PS3 and 360 games for a while yet, and that's not a bad thing that makes the new systems and new games "teh sux." They were still releasing PS2 games just a few years ago.

If developers take the upscale route rather than downscale route like Ubisoft, then it will certainly affect the newer generation of consoles' game quality and performance in a negative manner.

 

[Zenoth]

The development of games following the "end" of a console's lifespan (any consoles) has occurred for and is being repeated since the past two decades or so. A console sure can be discontinued but there's always a number of games being made for them, even if it's just a dozen or so that would be released in the following months, if not years after a console's "death" (I.E. discontinuation). Due to the enormous market for both the 360 and the PS3 (and the Wii too) there's certainly going to be many games coming for another year or two (probably more).

I wouldn't be surprised if we're going to hear about this and that new game coming out for the PS3 and the 360 (perhaps even the Wii) a good two years into the next generation's lifespan. It's just history repeating itself, and that's also how business works. Simply put there's planned games, currently in-development, some take two years to make, some were started five months before this year's E3 and won't be finished until both the PS4 and the XBOX One end up on store shelves (and will have been there since months already). In fact just take Dragon Age 3 for example, sure it comes out for the PS4 and the XBOX One, but it's also coming out for the PS3 and the 360 (and of course the PC, and I don't really expect the PC "port" to be that of the PS4's nor the XBOX One's version but time will tell about that one). If I recall correctly during Microsoft's conference at E3 the spokesman on the stage (whoever that guy was) mentioned how for the coming decade the XBOX One will provide entertainment (or something along the lines). A decade, seriously, gosh if that's true I'll be 40 years-old when just maybe finally at that point there's going to be some rumors about the "PS5" and the "XBOX Two". I don't know if he was literal and if Microsoft really plans to milk the poor thing dry from the inside out until it turns into dust for an actual decade (I'd estimate that both the PS4 and the One will last a good seven or eight years just like the current gen did so far), but if this current generation's lifespan means anything then I wouldn't be surprised after all (since the PS3 and the 360 are about seven years-old and still "kicking" business-wise). And I do have the gut feeling that the next generation will be there to stay for a long, very long time indeed.

If you think that there's issues with lowest common denominator choices from the devs when it comes down to porting to PC with this current generation then imagine how's it going to be down the line in about four or five years from now with the PS4 and the XBOX One, right in the middle of their life. Basically the main problem isn't the lowest common denominator itself (that in itself is "part" of the problem only since it does relate to technical limitations coming from said common denominator consoles), but my only complaint about that if I'd have one (well I guess it is one) would be related to the longevity of a generation's "milking" and appealing of said lowest common denominator, since indeed console generations can stay for nearly a decade (if literally that long), so it drags on and seems worse over the years (but generally-speaking isn't really so bad during the first year or two).

As far as hardware goes I have to say that the gap in capabilities (purely hardware-wise) when you compare the current gen with the upcoming one is nothing short of amazing (especially memory-wise, going from about 512MB overall to 8GB... that sort of gap in consoles gaming history is unprecedented, and that 8GB surely was planned for a reason, maybe it's because they do plan on milking it for a decade on both sides). The PS4 and XBOX One themselves of course aren't so high-tech and "capable" if you compare them both to current tech PC components (or even from a year or two ago), but why comparing them to PCs? We will never have a console generation which upon release is equal to or greater than "current tech" PC's capabilities, as far as I try to remember it never actually occurred. In the end what matters ultimately are the games. If they are fun I can take sudden pop-ins or blurry textures to some extent. It depends on so many factors and is a very subjective thing overall to talk about since it basically relates to graphics and how you can appreciate or how you can or cannot "tolerate" engine limitations or decisions by the devs to reduce this and that eye-candy due to the console's own limitations.

No I don't like sudden in-your-face pop-ins of objects, and no I don't like blurry, washed-out 512x512 textures on Ultra settings stretching to 1080p when my PC has a "high-end" GPU and 8GB of memory on a 64-Bit OS. But what can I do about it? I can "not like it" if I want to sure, I can also "vote with my wallet" but not buying the games won't suddenly convince any devs to go HD-mode on their PS3 or 360 game that's due to come out in two years from now when at that point we're going to speak about 1080p as being old-school. The lowest common denominator will still happen for a long time.

 

[Bateluer]

Have to agree mostly with the OP here. Developers have been using the X360 and PS3 are their baselines for games. And even when they've tried to take advantage of the PC's power, the engines they're using were all built with the 360 and PS3 in mind. And that keeps them grounded with 7-8 year old hardware. A modern video card alone offers more processing power than a 360 and PS3 combined. Probably more than a pair. And it all goes into simply making games run faster rather than increasing the details.

OP isn't the first to say this either. Nvidia released a PR statement after the unveils saying they were excited to see the new consoles because it raised the minimum standards, same with a few bigger developers.


A bigger question, I think, is how long these new consoles will last? They're launching with mid-range CPUs for early-2013, and mid-low range GPUs for early 2013. There's no way these are going to hanging around in 8 years as legitimate high end consoles. Since they're using x86 parts though, I can't imagine it'll be difficult to do a refresh in 4 years. Refine the chassis designs, give the APU a significant bump, add more RAM/storage, all with more or less the same PC components that'll be available then. Lets them keep full 100% backwards compatibility, lets developers keep using most of their existing tools and codebases, etc.

 

[dagamer34]

Have to agree mostly with the OP here. Developers have been using the X360 and PS3 are their baselines for games. And even when they've tried to take advantage of the PC's power, the engines they're using were all built with the 360 and PS3 in mind. And that keeps them grounded with 7-8 year old hardware. A modern video card alone offers more processing power than a 360 and PS3 combined. Probably more than a pair. And it all goes into simply making games run faster rather than increasing the details.

OP isn't the first to say this either. Nvidia released a PR statement after the unveils saying they were excited to see the new consoles because it raised the minimum standards, same with a few bigger developers.


A bigger question, I think, is how long these new consoles will last? They're launching with mid-range CPUs for early-2013, and mid-low range GPUs for early 2013. There's no way these are going to hanging around in 8 years as legitimate high end consoles. Since they're using x86 parts though, I can't imagine it'll be difficult to do a refresh in 4 years. Refine the chassis designs, give the APU a significant bump, add more RAM/storage, all with more or less the same PC components that'll be available then. Lets them keep full 100% backwards compatibility, lets developers keep using most of their existing tools and codebases, etc.

I'd say it really depends on how much CPU and GPU tech keeps advancing today you can get a GPU with 4.5 Teraflops of compute for $1000. What will $1000 get you 4 or 8 years from now? 45 Teraflops? What do Internet connections look like 4-8 years from now?

 

[homercles337]

The worst case of pop-in i can think of is what ever variant of GTA came before that DRM POS GTA IV (i paid for, but could not play IV because of DRM). The only "persistent" objects were in your current field of view (and cops). Standing in the street, do a 180, then back and you have a brand new set of objects.

 

[Carfax83]

In fact just take Dragon Age 3 for example, sure it comes out for the PS4 and the XBOX One, but it's also coming out for the PS3 and the 360 (and of course the PC, and I don't really expect the PC "port" to be that of the PS4's nor the XBOX One's version but time will tell about that one).

Dragon Age 3 is one of the games that surprised me with support for the 360 and PS3. It will by all reports be using the Frostbite 3 engine, which is practically a next gen engine.

And if Dragon Age 3 will be on the Xbox 360 and PS3, you know Mass Effect 4 (or whatever it will be called) will be on it as well.

But perhaps my assessment was incorrect. After rethinking, I think the main problem is software rather than hardware.. The GAME ENGINE will be the ultimate factor I think, in the overall quality of these next gen games and how they run on PC.

An excellent game engine like CryEngine 3 or Frostbite 3 WILL make good use of the PC platform and the next gen consoles, and I'm sure the Unreal Engine 4 will as well. The only side effect will be that the size and scope of the games may be limited due to having to run on the 360 and PS3.

That's one reason why CDPR decided to abandon the 360 and PS3 for the Witcher 3. Their open World game with no artificial boundaries or break points will require a lot of memory, memory that the 360 does not have.

If the Witcher 3 was being developed for the 360 and PS3, the size and scope would definitely need to be scaled back..

Retarded devs like Ubisoft won't be able to get away with making game engines targeted towards the lowest common denominator like they did with the Dunia 2 engine, if they want their new games to run well on the PS4 and Xbox One.

They will have no choice but to downscale rather than upscale, which is the logical choice.

 

[futurefields]

Totally agree with the OP. Sick of these AAA games being developed for this sh1tty 2005 consoles.

All these engine are designed to run primarily on IBM PowerPC in-order processors, 512mb total RAM including system and video RAM.

How is an engine like that ever going to make use of proper x86 desktop processors and 8-16gb of RAM?

All we have on PC are the exact same sh1t engines, all they do is say oh you can bump up the resolution, add specular mish mash and gee-whiz lighting.

But when you get in the hang-glider in Far Cry 3, you still see everything popping in, totally breaking the visual immersion smh....

The engines are designed for screenshots, that's it...

 

[Carfax83]

A bigger question, I think, is how long these new consoles will last? They're launching with mid-range CPUs for early-2013, and mid-low range GPUs for early 2013. There's no way these are going to hanging around in 8 years as legitimate high end consoles. Since they're using x86 parts though, I can't imagine it'll be difficult to do a refresh in 4 years. Refine the chassis designs, give the APU a significant bump, add more RAM/storage, all with more or less the same PC components that'll be available then. Lets them keep full 100% backwards compatibility, lets developers keep using most of their existing tools and codebases, etc.

According to Zenoth, a Microsoft rep stated that "for the coming decade," the Xbox One will provide entertainment.

I can't see these consoles lasting a decade. In a decade, we will all be using 4K monitors and UDTVs.. A product refresh will definitely be in order at some point..

 

[Stringjam]

You can easily develop in CryEngine3 to use tons of memory and insane draw distance if that's what you want. It's nothing more than settings.

I once set up a level in Crysis with long draws with shadows and no LoDs, which pretty much left me with a slideshow.

You can render stuff realtime in that engine that gives VRay a run, so the idea that it was designed for consoles is just....uninformed.

They introduced some things in CE3 to allow it to scale to consoles (like level streaming and an automatic occlusion system), but a lot of it helped it run much better on PC as well. You can still develop a PC game on it without compromise.

 

[Carfax83]

Because of all the trash talking of the Far Cry 3 Dunia 2 engine I did in this thread, I feel it's important to rectify what I said due to a recent discovery I made.

Apparently, if you have NVidia hardware like I do, using HBAO is much better than HDAO because the former was developed by NVidia whilst the latter was developed by AMD, and as you would expect, each form of ambient occlusion runs best on the hardware it was developed on.

Switching over from HDAO to HBAO wiped out 95% of the stuttering I was getting, and made the game look MUCH better and run a lot smoother.. Shadows no longer flicker and there is a lot more depth to the textures.

I still think the engine is too consolized (it should be using a lot more RAM), but it definitely still looks gorgeous. Now if only there was a way to increase draw distance :\

 

[mmntech]

Sony intended the PS3 to be supported for 10 years. Here's some food for thought though. FIFA 14 will be released on the Playstation 2 this September. It's the final western game from a major publisher to be released on the platform. It also spans 3 console generations. So the PS2 has seen games published for it for 14 years. FIFA 05 was also the last western game released for the PS1. It's possible that the PS3 could still see support right up to 2020.

Microsoft on the other hand killed off the Xbox pretty quick. The last western game for the system was Madden 09, released at the tail end of 2008. So 7 years.

Games definitely are aging rapidly on the PS3/360. I was playing Bioshock 2 the other day and thought how ugly it looks compared to Bioshock 1 on my PC. I enjoy Sony's first party games so that's what I got it for. The PC is my multiplatform system.

 

[clok1966]

I find it hard to believe MS will support he 360 for very long. MS is a company that has always worked its best interests. The Xbox one had almost ZERO support after the 360 came out.. with some good reason it was not succesfull so supporting it was not going to make them much money. The 360 is different, but still MS tries to push out old tech when new comes in (just good business sense to get us on the next cash cow) MS has grudgingly supported older OS do to public outcry, not of any good will.

the 360 has a good install base and while I doubt MS will make many new games for it, they dont have too, plenty of devs are making games as we speak. Some have moved to next gen, but you have a game hlaf done, your not EA, you cant budget a generation upgrade.. so expect games for about 2 years.. then a trickle after as some devs will stick to what they know longer then others.

PS3 will probely be worse.. same install base, but the simple fact is same amount of consoles, the 360 sells way more units (games). Again games take time, so game in current dev will make it to it.

the first years of a NEW console generation its always good to support the slow changers. but in 1-2 years to stay int he game, most will be pushing for next gen titles and forgetting about supporting old hardware. But historicly SONY has supported olde consoles as long as there was some market for it.

As SONY consoles still sell (most illegal knock offs) and I think the PS2 is still sold in some countries (not by SONY) for $69 or $99 you still have a massive market of people who cant afford a PS3 let alone a PS4.. so if you dont need to sell 6 Million units (like EA) and can make a gme and sell 500,000 units and make a profit.. there is no reason not to make a game for those old consoles. 2-3 new titles every few months.. not alot if choice.. much better odds people will buy it.

as for OP stuttering issues in game.. NO GAME developed for the last gen consoles should have issue. Yes a quick port of Farcry 3. might . but a well done port, no.. The memory is only really an issue with super resolution and textures.. Consoles have much lower res and textures then PC counterparts.. I don't own farcry 3 on a console.. but its not the consoles fault if it runs bad.. its the devs (or whoever is forcing it other the door before its tweeked/tuned for a console).. If we where early in the console life cycle you could say it was lack of knowledge.. but at this point in the game there are no excuses but sloppy, to quick, forced stuff..