@Fenderfuel08:

*cough* infinity ward, sega, epic games.

tamago007

@MCWHERTOR: "Someone should really write a book about optimizing 4D performance on the PS3. They'd make thousands!"

Thats it? Thousands? I'd figure atleast TENS of thousands.

manjikengo

Insomniac and Naughty Dog are irrelevant here. Chances are both of those companies are getting tons of support from Sony on how to program for the PS3, possibly in the form of Sony's own trained engineers paying visits or co-working on the projects.

For EA and everyone else, Sony has been notorious for leaving developers with little support on how to optimise games for their hardware. Even though it's tempting to blame EA for everything(which they deserve most of the time) this one probably isn't their fault.

Fenderfuel08

now it's the time for them to finally make the decision to buy UBI, what ever cost.

htd

They better get Madden right this year on the PS3

ExtremeOne316

@incredibilistic:

It would make sense for rockstar and the other companies to have agreements that both game versions are released on the same day.

Manjikengo

@Candlejack:

*cough* devil may cry 4

tamago007

@Candlejack:
*cough*

Manjikengo

I figured a long time ago not to run with scissors, don't play with matches, and not to zip up too fast.

EA figured out that they can make better games -- on both systems -- if they lead with the PS3. And this is the largest game publisher on the planet (well, at least the in the US anyway)?

I would be ashamed to admit that I've had nearly two years to work with the PS3 (no doubt they got dev kits at least 6 months or more before the system was on the shelf) and STILL can't figure it out.

As for Rockstar's delays there's more to the story than just the PS3 being the buzz-killer. If the game was really ready for the 360 why not pull an EA and release it late? Or does Rockstar have a contract with Sony to ensure that MS doesn't get a headstart? Either way I'm sure the game is way better with extra time its had to simmer.

incredibilistic

@okenny :): But you're proven wrong by games that were developed with the PS3 as lead platform...as it says in the article.

And to be honest, I doubt that the PS3 would hold any multi platform title back because of anything other than it not being the lead platform (less work invested in + more difficult development = bad mix).

Candlejack

@altgod: "Why would they need to be toned down for the 360? You speak as if the PS3 is actually a more powerful console. Looking at the numbers, the 360 seems to be more capable to me, but then again, I'm not a game developer. On the other hand, a lot of devs have said that the two consoles were either equal, or the 360 was slightly better."

I'm still upset that I couldn't properly aim during my Uncharted gameplay. Idiot co-worker told me it was due to harder aiming mechanics. No retard, try loose shitty thumbsticks.

Manjikengo

@TheRealMaxPower:
Infinity Ward has stated their engine is "platform agnostic". COD4 wasn't developed on PS3 then ported to PS3 man.

Source: [www.next-gen.biz]

Infinity Ward: "We haven't had any problems [with PS3] and that's probably because of our development philosophy. We develop content-agnostic so we don't have a lead platform."

DigitalHero

@Marlor:
The problem is, most developers seem to place no attention to AI (good physics is becoming more common place). I remember thinking the same thing when the PS3 was announced, but I quickly realized that that wasn't what most gamers were interested in, and so most developers wouldn't care either. I'm glad to see that Lucas Arts is, however, stressing AI and realistic Physics with their upcoming games.

altgod

@baked ham: Learning a language and learning hardware are two different things. It sounds like you like to think that 6th grade Qbasic gives you a special insight into real world development issues. Just a heads up; it doesn't.

celery

@Soldrak: Hiring more programmers, I think, is a poor decision. EA is all about hiring huge quantities with low pay, rather than smaller quantities with higher pay (obviously for the more intelligent, although not necessarily experienced). Like I said, I agree with you with respect to affecting the budget, but honestly, the PS3 isn't as difficult to program for as everyone thinks. Look at Naughty Dog, Infinity Ward, Criterion, Insomniac... even Ubisoft. They've all been capable of making fantastic games for PS3 (and some for 360 as well) with budgets that I imagine are not far off from normal.

The difficulty lies in porting games from the 360 to the PS3 (it appears to be more easily done the other way around). Think about what a port is. Basically, a method they use to save cash while being able to release a game on multiple consoles (at the same price no less). Now that trick isn't as easy as before, and they're crying about it. And as you most likely are, I am not a fan of ports, especially the kind that EA, one of the top publishers in the world, like to put out.

wicko

@Snukadaman_: or maybe ppl are tired of the guns 'n shootin'. we'll leave the over saturation to the 360 and keep the ps3 varied.

sycodude

@Candlejack: That's the best idea I've heard all day! Great business sense... excellent! Criterion hand the idea correct right?!!! Good job! Great call! EA should hire you :D
...
The last thing companies really want to do is make games on a plat form that forces them to deliver a guaranteed mediocre experience on the the other. If the PS3 has the fucked up architecture that requires entire project to bend to it at the cost of quality everywhere else, maybe it's not the best idea to make the PS3 the lead platform.

okenny :)

EA=Buncha noobs

tamago007

Who they put out Burnout as lead platform but because they said that its harder to code from the 360 to the PS3 everyone goes crazy. Maybe they should stop behaving like a company trying to make a profit and only make PS3 games.

xAngelGabrielx

Epic showed the ps3 some love with Ultimate Tournament yet most ps3 owners are not even buying it...its at 197K right now at vg chartz...People in North America are showing they are more interested in the ps3 as being the cheaper blu-ray movie player...not the game console most of us are waiting for.

Snukadaman_

I'm going to be honest with you I have a 360 and I love it, but at the same time I think that the sentiment that these game devs arent trying to hard is correct. Its the same thing with the countless number of crappy, gimmicky wii games that come out, developers are trying to challenge themselves. Hell, i still believe that the Xbox 360 hasnt even reached its full potential yet. Only a couple of games really take advantage of this power. Now, if they took the time out and really delve into these architectures then we would have better games. yeah sure we probably would have not as many releases ill take substance over volume any day.

undertaker208198

People really need to stop saying EA isn't trying. They aren't, but that's not the point. Why the hell should they try to develope for a console with a lower consumer base, and a shitty, confusing architecture when they could develope for a console with a large consumer base and a conventional and easy to use PC architecture.
@HykCraft:
Rockstar also blamed the 360 disc space.

@Eddy666:
The thing is, this also increases dev time. The fact is the PS3 is just harder to develope for. But, if your going multiplatform, I guess you just have to.

@njhardcoreguy:
Why would they need to be toned down for the 360? You speak as if the PS3 is actually a more powerful console. Looking at the numbers, the 360 seems to be more capable to me, but then again, I'm not a game developer. On the other hand, a lot of devs have said that the two consoles were either equal, or the 360 was slightly better. That said, I don't think anyone knows the full capability of the Cell yet, so lets hold off on declaring one console completely superior.

altgod

The reason they don't develop on PS3 first is cause they're too stoopid. That and they won't take the risk. EA would much rather make a hefty profit on a platform with a larger installed base. So, make the game good on that one platform you know you can make a decent game on, port to a harder to program console, watch it turn into a hideous monster, and loot off the PS3 buyers who die trying to fight it.
God I hope Bioware can smack some dev sense into EA.

mgs_FOXDIE

@madflava wrote: "I think developers will catch up and we will see some amazing looking PS3 games in the future."

There's not much difference between the GPUs of the PS3 and the 360. They each have their own advantages, but in the end there isn't much between them. So, the PS3 is never going to blow the 360 away in graphics performance.

The place where the PS3 is superior is in its potential for parallel processing. This could lead to improved AI or physics if developers can work out how to take full advantage of the six accessible SPUs.

Marlor

@HykCraft: Yet, the Sony fanboys will still claim that development on the PS3 is much easier than the 360 and will also claim that all other stories are just plain false.

Umm, since when? I can't recall a single sony/PS3 fanboy saying the PS3 is easier to develop for. Easier to port from PS3 to 360 (than the other way around). But it's definitely not easier to develop on the PS3.

@DigitalHero: Why dodn't they just convert the systems they used on PS2's PPU's to the PS3's SPU's like Insomniac and Naughty Dog?

I'm pretty sure both Insomniac and Naughty Dog threw everything they knew about the PS2 out when they started development on the PS3.

@budash2: How can Insomniac and Naughty Dog churn out awesome titles with nothing but ease?

I don't know about ease. I'm sure a lot of blood, sweat and tears were poured into the games they've created. They get great results, but I'm pretty sure their developers work harder (and smarter) than EA developers to get those results.

@big_world: I find this news particularly alarming, considering EA is a developer known for their tireless work ethic and perfectionist nature.

Awesome stuff! :D

@TOCATL: @Bernard McGraw: i dont think they will focus firt on te ps3 because of the cost of developing for that machine...

I suspect when companies like EA create a game the first priority is screen shots & trailers for magazines, E3, etc. They can put those together quicker on 360, but then they're reluctant to throw out the shitty code they used to create the initial advertising.

Doshu

As far as i can gather from his drivel...making the PS3 the lead platform makes more sense as theyre developing from scratch, meaning there are very little chances of EA cheaping out and using old code and converting it for the PS3. Doing so side by side or with the 360 as the lead allows that to take place which is why it causes such delays. IIRC other devs had spoken about just this scenario where 360 to PS3 coding is difficult but not vice versa.

Deus_EpS

@wicko: You're missing the point. If a system is hard to develop for (complex) you would need to hire more programmers and more experienced ones at that. This would impact budgeting in other areas, like art and level design staff because they all share the same budgeting pool.

I think you're grossly understating the cost of extra programmers. You add 10 of them, that already amounts to over half a million dollars. You add a senior programmer, add a hundred grand.

Soldrak

@sascha23: ^ *console (obviously consoler is good word as well)

sascha23

@TheRealMaxPower: Developers may pick the lead consoler based on profit, but really the R&D costs are going to be much lower if they build on the system that will be easy to port from (i.e. PS3).

sascha23

Maybe they need to quit dumping money into buying every developer out there then and focus on their god awful games. Criterion may be owned by EA but I don't consider them really an inside part of EA. They had no problem with Burnout either. Every internal game made by EA has been TERRIBLE for the PS3 and below average for every other system. So, no I won't buy this story from him.

Sollus

Well, considering Merceneries lead system was the PS3, I don't think that will be an issue.

I think EA is just coming up with excuses for investors regarding their past. Going forward, I don't see too many issues. More than likely most developers will go with PS3 as lead (if not already) to ensure the process is easier all around and to avoid future stress.

sascha23

Jeez just hire more freelance who are smarter than your PS3 challenged programmers. Don't think it's gonna be too hard to find better staff.
Hey, but this is what you expect from EA:
Army of Two sux I hear, Madden has half the framerate, and Orange Box with its stutters and schizophrenic motion blurs.
EA doesn't compoare to top-notch devs who actually put in some effort like Infinity, Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and Epic into PS3. Even Ubisoft is up there, besides their crappy ports.

mgs_FOXDIE

@Soldrak: Last I checked, game programmers are not game designers. While I do agree that it has an substantial effect on a budget, I don't think its as big of a deal as you believe.

wicko

There must be a good reason why they don't just base development on PS3 and "port" to 360... Maybe (just speculating) the "ported" 360 games aren't as good as games developed for the 360, and they'd rather have the optimized version on the system that will sell more copies? Maybe? I'm not sure. All I know is I'm glad we didn't have to wait for the Orange box on 360, and it bugs me that the PS3 is holding up 360 games...

WEGGLES90

@Bernard McGraw: Still getting their heads around the around? My god, when I was in 6th grade I had learned how to program with Qbasic and made a rather large text adventure DOS game the very same day that I heard about QBasic and my father taught me the ropes of the language. If as a 6th grader I was capable of learning a (simple) programming language relatively comprehensively in one day, I don't see how these professional game developers are taking so long to learn the PS3 hardware. I saw beautiful, proven, real-time video footage of Metal Gear Solid 4 on PS3 hardware back in 2005, more than a full year before the PS3 was even for sale anywhere in the world. The dev kits have been out there for a long long time. If the "pros" over at EA haven't figure it out by now, I think it's time some people get sent back to school.

baked ham

@Leobebes: Erm, maybe you should take your own advice? You are also spouting theory as fact. The potential of the Cell is bottlenecked perhaps if developers keep applying PC style programming techniques to a system that is not a PC. I'm sure you've heard the articles here and there about multiple PS3's replacing super computers for researchers and the like (much like they are at my university, although on a smaller scale). 256MB, believe it or not, is a LOT of memory.

wicko

@Sparx88: Complexity is a BAD thing because games are about game design, not technical prowess. This is the problem most PS3 fans have, they seem to think that technology is everything. That is not the case, wake up and smell the Wii. Developers hate complexity because it reduces the budget and time they have for more important things LIKE GAMEPLAY and GAME DESIGN.

Or are you under the delusion that companies have unlimited budgets and hence can waste all of them just to satisfy Sony's technology ego?

Soldrak

@NeoAkira:

SK=2K

NeoAkira

@big_world:

"I find this news particularly alarming, considering EA is a developer known for their tireless work ethic and perfectionist nature."

I don't know about their perfectionist nature, but tireless work ethic?

Yes I'm sure it must take a lot of work for EA to just keep releasing a different, yet identical, Madden and NBA SK every year.

NeoAkira

Don't developers pick the lead console based on profit?

If I was making a game I would target the market where I have the best chance to sell my game (360). 360 owners buy games at a much higher rate than Wii or PS3. Personally I would rather perfect the cash cow version before worrying about the bonus money versions.

Companies who develop for only one console will always get more out of that system than a cross developer. Is anyone surprised by this? Please stop bringing up 1st party games as examples.

CoD4 was going to move some units on 360 and PS3. Infinity Ward really didn't take much risk making the PS3 the lead system. EA making Madden or any other game they make the lead could turn out poorly if both versions don't work well.

TheRealMaxPower

@RaepGoblin: lol was about to say the same thing. it's like "hmm if i drive down the right side of the road i get into no accidents, but if i drive down the other side or both at the same time i get hit way more often" kinda weird

Bleentastic

I assume that EA's bottom line is the main factor in how they develop games. With their cross platform sports game they focus on developing for the 360 because it's easiest for them at the moment and port it over with faults. The first year of Madden on 360 was pretty awful and it was expected to be the same on PS3. I hope they get things fixed by the time Madden 09 comes out. Overall, I assume that PS3 is hard to develop for because it is the most powerful and complex system on the market. I think developers will catch up and we will see some amazing looking PS3 games in the future. Currently, it is flooded with ports.

madflava

Like I said in another post though, complexity is not a bad thing because it does make developers work harder to come up with new ideas and that ultimately benefits us gamers. Then again, EA seems content to rest on their laurels and churn out the same crap over and over again without really changing anything.

Sparx88

"Games where we essentially led development on the PS3 platform, like Burnout [Paradise], [...] we had no issue at all."

Then why isn't every game done that way? It seems like an idiotic thing to make simultaneously released games the other way.

How hard can it freaking be?

RaepGoblin

Maybe EA just needs to buy some more developers to help them out....*sigh*

Darkest Daze

Next they'll say the Developer's Guide To PS3 was written in really bad Engrish waaaah.

greyhoundbus

@Seruza:
Look, complexibility is not equal to power.. Saturn was WAY hard to develop for than PS1 and even if explored to its peak it wouldn't surpass PS1 due to the fact PS1 had T&L in his design.

If you are a gamer, stay as a gamer, it's only a easy way to make yourself look like a fool trying to figure out which hardware is better without knowing/researching the full architecture and practical use of the technology.

Ludwig

@budash2: Actually if you've watched any of Naughty Dog's "making-of" documentaries for Uncharted you would realize that 1) Yes, they had a hard time with the PS3 especially in the beginning and 2) The complexity of the console means they've only tapped into 1/4 of its theoretical power.

What they don't say though is whether or not it's humanly possible within budgetary limits to ever tap the PS3's full potential. Insomniac and Naughty Dog are first-party developers for Sony, it's only natural that they'd have massive financial backing even if they bleed money and don't earn a profit. Last I checked, Uncharted has yet to turn a profit for Sony and is a relative failure compared to Microsoft's first-party titles.

Soldrak

I just purchased a 360 to go along with my PS3, so I'm not too worried about it. I honestly hope EA gets their act together for PS3 owners. If they keep crapping on PS3 owners like this, and then wonder why their games aren't selling on the PS3, then they really need help. Other developers have done awesome work on the PS3, why can't uber-hyper-mega developer/publisher EA do it?

graze81

The problem with developing for the PS3 is that games have to be developed with the Cell's unusual architecture in mind. Code has to be parallelised to a large degree, since there are six SPEs there to be used.

That's twice as many cores as in the 360, but the cores are reportedly not as fast as those found in Microsoft's console.

So, if you use the same codebase as on the 360 (with at most three threads), it's not going to work too well on the PS3. You will end up having to work out ways to make the code more parallelised. This is easier said than done. Many games have one main thread doing the majority of the work.

So, it's not just a matter of a simple, straightforward "port". The code needs to be restructured when going between the 360 and PS3. That's something that requires skill, and I'm guessing EA are still giving "porting duties" to their less talented developers.

Marlor

Problem is no one in the gaming community has experience programing for the cell architecture. Massive multi-core projects like that usually fall on programming sleuths you'd find skulking the halls of MIT. Hopefully, they're learning lots.

electroplankton

@Candlejack:

I didn't say which was superior because I would agree with you that the 64 was. But if you take into account that the disc was somewhat new then yes it was more complex. I'm not trying to disregard what anyone says, just saying that he does present a ring of truth

Sparx88

@Sparx88: I didn't call him a fanboy, I was merely pointing out how sad "console victory" sounds. Pathetic, almost.

BTW, the PS1 was more complex than the N64? Maybe because of the disc system, but the hardware in the N64 was superior as far as I know.

Candlejack

Insomniac , Naughty Dog , even Criterion !
some devs have to learn...

symphony_of_the_night

@Seruza:

"every sony system is tougher to develop for because its usually much more complex than its counterpart at the time. guess what that has lead to? lasting power and console victories."

You are spouting theory as fact. Many developers have come across and said the Playstation's architecture is an unnecessary hurdle. The memory architecture for the PS3 is limited, the GPU limited, its all the same as the 360 except for Blue Ray and the touted cell. The potential of the cell will be bottle necked due to the 256/256 RAM architecture. The XBOX was technologically better than the PS2 the last generation, but without committed developers it didn't get anywhere without ever reaching its potential. Imagine if Kojima developed a Metal Gear game for the the XBOX from the ground up how better it would have looked than the PS2 version? This generation its different though the PS3 can definitely make longer games fit on one disk but its memory architecture will limit the cell's potential.

Leobebes

Ever Since Madden 2001 EA has turned into a company ALL about the Dolla Bill. They dont care about their games or the consumer.

DCPlayaPride

@Flawless101: @Candlejack:

I believe what hes referring to is despite being a more complex system, the PS1 came in and took over Nintendo and while the PS2 was also one of the hardest platforms to develop for it went on to become the best selling console of all time. You can't really call him a fanboy for stating the truth

Sparx88

get it together EA, I haven't got time for your failures for much longer.

sycodude

One thing that people are forgetting is that, for the most part, EA don't ever seem to need to make decent games to sell gajillions of them.

It's not dissimilar to shovelware.

Bernard McGraw

Sony defence force full blown, hide!!

Regarding the news, PS3 still better to develop for than PS2, so industry wins.

Ludwig

@Seruza: That's because there exclusively building it on the PS3, not building on the Xbox 360 and then moving it to the PS3. This is the same issue that happened last console when games on the Xbox didn't look as good as the PS2.

Deltakiral

@TOCATL: Why not? If you're making a game for a few systems you'd start with the one that gives you a head start on the next version. The money spent at the end would just be the same (or even less?).

Bernard McGraw

EA... Infinity Ward called. And it sounds like they're laughing at you.

FIRST!!!

They'd make thousands!

LOL - that's rich!

I thought EA was adapting and coping despite the learning curve. You'd *think* that as one of the biggest pubs, they'd have the best of the best that were even better than the best of the best. Of course that'd cost money.....I jest. Good luck EA, it's only your street cred on the line, yo. eh?

sadkermit posted his Wii number, seeks other Wii users..

That's where the money is.

Playstation

why do people even care what John Riccitiello saids regarding game development??

EA = PUBLISHER, they don't develop anything other than ways to lower cost and increase earning.

idrisz

@Seruza: Console victories? Oh man...

Candlejack

@Bernard McGraw: Alright so... most of the comments that appeared between my typing and posting pretty much confirmed that theory then :P

Bernard McGraw

@Bernard McGraw: i dont think they will focus firt on te ps3 because of the cost of developing for that machine...

TOCATL

@Seruza: HI fanboy.

Flawless101

Well if they had learned anything from Criterion is just make the PS3 the main console then port it to the xbox, it seems as though it is much easier that way and the games are both equally impressive. Win win for both console owners.

Eddy666

insomniac got it right off the bat.

mossberg

I find this news particularly alarming, considering EA is a developer known for their tireless work ethic and perfectionist nature.

...Seriously though, either lead development on the PlayStation 3 (as this seems to be the least problematic and easiest way to ensure high quality across the board) or hire some programmers who- you guessed it- know how to program on the PlayStation 3.

Seems like common sense. But then... well, it's EA.

big_world

How can Insomniac and Naughty Dog churn out awesome titles with nothing but ease? Aren't the two consoles simply different? I find it hard too believe that either of them are actually harder to develop for. Just depends where your priorities are.

And I can't believe some people are still tossing about fanboys/xbots/etc. That was so 2007, get with it.

budash2

@HykCraft: I'm not gonna pretend I actually know anything about game development but I gather that some developers are still just getting their heads around the PS3 hardware.

I can imagine that going multiplatform is a bitch because making the same game for two or three different machines turns into a separate job that's probably only a little bit less work than actually making two or three separate games.

My theories: if you're gonna go multiplatform, start development on PS3 and then port it to the 360 from there. I base this on is Devil May Cry 4, where the difference is practically non-existent, as opposed to The Orange Box for example.

If I'm talking crap then somebody call me out on it, just got theories but I don't know anything about how games are made.

Bernard McGraw

"a little bit more challenging development environment for us."

Read: We cant be fucked to develop properly for this platform because its a bit different. This shits all over our business model of releasing exactly the same game with ever so slightly improved graphics every six months.

Nayl

@HykCraft:

R* admitted problems with both systems. Stop trying to place all the blame on one system.

What else can we really expect from EA? Everyone knows they're the laziest dev company around. Just about every other company has resolved all their issues but EA continues to play dumb. Like Candlejack said, develop for the PS3 first, problem solved. It doesnt take a genius to figure that out.

Sparx88

@njhardcoreguy:
I'm with you. Infinity Ward pulled this off without sweating. Damn I love those guys. 60fps gaming on both platforms. :)

DigitalHero

@killswitch: Right. But for sure only a few can do it, and not so many 3rd parties. I'm not saying it's normal though!

Stop being lazy people! I hope Resistance 2 (and KZ2 before that) will make people realize they can't make crappy looking games on PS3 anymore.

Kaneda

You guys are forgetting the bigger part of this EA call, [wii.ign.com] Rock Band for Wii.

Joe of Super Radity

@vidreiro: Exactly. If we want to continue seeing current-gen games, continue developing for the 360. If we want to see games that push the envelope, start developing them for the PS3 and then toning them down for the 360.

How is this such an issue for EA? Look at COD4... they're identically AWESOME on both system and were released simultaneously.

njhardcoreguy

im really getting tired of EA bitching and moaning about how they are struggling when it comes to development for the ps3...=\

killswitch

@HykCraft:

Just two week ago, Rockstart admitted that development of GTAIV on the PS3 has slowed the game down unlike the 360 development of the same game.

And the original delay was due to that of the storage medium on the 360. But we forget that one don't we?

Anyhow. Infinity Ward had not an issue. The game was just as good on both. /shrug

EnigmaNemesis

Very lame at this point, Infinity Ward proved that it can be done on 2 consoles at the same time and still have very impressive results on both end

zeroltl

@HykCraft: Show me one instance where any sony fan claimed it was easier to develop for the ps3. every sony system is tougher to develop for because its usually much more complex than its counterpart at the time. guess what that has lead to? lasting power and console victories.

Seruza

that headline is funny, considering I read this at Gamasutra not that long ago and I do believe it was stated that things went fine if the development was PS3 native. But when it was cross-platform from 360 to ps3, there are problems.

No shit.

It's two entirely different architectures. that's like a developer crying because they are having problems trying to port a 360 game to Wii or how about a HD Street Fighter shrunk to fit into a 150MB limit with original and remastered music. Lastly this is trash-port, garbage-developer EA saying this.

I rest my case.

Striderhayasa

because Skate was fun?

pandafresh

@DigitalHero:
That's what I was thinking. Much smaller developers have managed to do great things with PS3. Really no excuse for EA to not be able to do the same, especially with their resources.

jacksons98

EA, you're the ONLY people still having problems with it. WHy? Cause you prefer to take the easy way out instead of creating a master piece. You know what I call that: cheap. Video Games are a form of art, interactive art. And your ames are like the artworks from the local community center...crappy and half-assed.

Kenaue

Seems like they can develop on PS3, and have no problem porting to Xbox....so why not just develop on PS3 so you'd have no problem? O.O I just don't get it.

Chris3000

If they had no issue for Burnout Paradise, then they shouldn't have an issue with another game. Leading on the PS3 seems to solve the problem. Oh well, EA can do what they wish.

Saint Anima: Kotaku's Poetic Massacre

@Kaneda: and Square Enix.

killswitch

Is it just me or is there pretty much only Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Team Ico, Polyphony Digital and Kojima who can say that they truly take advantage of the PS consoles?

Kaneda

@themoderndaysinner: u know thats a good point!.

killswitch

Seriously, why do we still buy games from these idiots?

themoderndaysinner

get smart. EA

killswitch

Why dodn't they just convert the systems they used on PS2's PPU's to the PS3's SPU's like Insomniac and Naughty Dog?

DigitalHero

Ack.. Rockstar* not Rockstart.

HykCraft

Bottom Line: If it is Not challenging to design for, then your NOT pushing the Medium. (IMO)

vidreiro

Yet, the Sony fanboys will still claim that development on the PS3 is much easier than the 360 and will also claim that all other stories are just plain false.

It's obvious and more of a fact now with so many developers and publishers coming forward saying the reason for delays is because development on the PS3 console has been causing problems.

Just two week ago, Rockstart admitted that development of GTAIV on the PS3 has slowed the game down unlike the 360 development of the same game.

And now EA comes forward claiming that "yes, there's problems with developing on the console."

HykCraft

@Candlejack: Not that I enjoy being called an Xbot but it does piss me off everytime a game I'm looking forward to gets held back for a simultaneous launch just because another console decided to have an unnecessarily difficult development process.

Joe of Super Radity

Of course they aren't trying. Insomniac has already churned out 2 amazing titles with a sure AAA one otw later this year. Its a question of motivation to develop for the console more than it is a technical challenge.

Seruza

Looks like somebodyyy still sucks at developmeeeent~

C'mon guys, even Ubisoft figured it out (for the most part). Get your act together, EA.

Pai Pai Master

Develop for the PS3 then. I am pretty sure Xbots will appreciate no more delays and PS3 fanboys can sleep at night knowing their system is the lead platform. Everybody wins. No wait, EA would have to think of another reason for their delays.

Candlejack

*Lame-o sense tingling*

They're not trying that hard...methinks.

ComradeStalin

@ludwigk:

I understand what you're saying. It's just that... well, none of it's true.

Gametrailers.com stated in their review of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune that the PlayStation 3 had, in one year, achieved graphics better than anything seen on consoles. Period. [www.gametrailers.com]

They (and many others) also stated that Unreal Tournament III is graphically on par with Gears of War, which is the current "King of Pretty Graphics" for the Xbox 360. [www.gametrailers.com]

The fact is that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 are built and structured completely differently. They have the same amount of RAM, they're just allocated differently. Making use of all the PlayStation 3's RAM is a challenge for developers, but when you look at Killzone 2 and Gran Turismo 5 it's clear that a few companies are tapping into it (finally).

The Xbox 360 is exactly what developers are used to, which is why they don't have any problems porting a PlayStation 3 game to the Xbox 360. The inverse creates more of a challenge, but that has nothing to do with your perceived "inferiority" of the PlayStation 3 and everything to with the programmer's limited abilities.

Epic got the hang of it, so EA has no excuses.

"We're just really lazy," is not an excuse by the way.

big_world

@PSN ID: Kadaj24:

They really didn't look much better, and they were always worse what xbox could do.

Mpalm.

@ludwigk:

I played through both and they played identically. Sorry.

Mpalm.

@Soldrak:

If you consider this a serious discussion, you've got some issues to work out. And scratch "most" with "all the time", and you should get my point. Then again, I don't recall directing my comment towards you to begin with.

It's the first time I hear of ass kissing of consoles, considering that I like both for different reasons. I own very few multiplatform games, and it's ultimately the software that has me interested. I remain neutral because despite of my personal thoughts (coming from an engineering background), I'm a consumer. If you don't see a logic in that, then carry on with your "serious discussion".

SG79

@Mpalm.: Sorry, but that wasn't the issue. This was post-patch. Framerates were still inferior ALL OVER THE PLACE compared to the X360 version. I happened to have a house mate, and a house guest, one with a PS3, other with an X360, both playing the same section of Assassin's creed on my HDTV.

The PS3 version is certainly playable, but I'm very sensitive to framerate, and I'd spent a lot of time watching the X360 version, so it stuck out like a sore thumb to me. The cross platform project I worked on had much more emphasis on "plays the same" than "looks the same", and reviewers all thought the two titles were graphically equivalent, which blew my mind because I know what was done to the PS3 version to get the fps back up.

The washed out look doesn't bother me. That can be fixed either from the console or the TV, if anyone really cares.

ludwigk

@Mpalm.:

I highly doubt theyve hit their graphical limits already. It's way too early to say that. Even PS2 games looked better and better and no one wouldve thought that graphics on it would look even better 6 years in the console with GOW2.

PSN ID: Kadaj24

@okenny :):

Exactly, while MGS has always had really good graphics, people dont go to it expecting phenomenal graphics, they (we) expect a phenomenal story. In-game graphics are always great but cutscenes are so-so since theyre always in-engine.

PSN ID: Kadaj24

@ludwigk:

Another thing, get off the 360 high horse. Honestly, all three consoles have hit their graphical limitations already. You're only going to see graphical upgrades on PC games. Sure, you might see slightly nicer textures or something here and there, but the improvements won't be much compared to what we will see on PC. You really think that xbox games take such a hit by developing on it first? Ok, so some games brick path looks slightly brickier on the 360... god forbid developers gimp that!

Mpalm.

@Soldrak: MGS4 looked really good when first showed about two years ago (I think). But it doesn't hold up well to games of today. Hopefully they are pulling a Halo in-that they are leaving a final coat of paint off that they can apply just before the big advertisement push to freshen it up a bit. That said, I don't think people are looking forward to Metal Gear for the graphics; the fans just love the story.

okenny :)

@ludwigk:

I'm guessing you didn't play it after it was patched very shortly after release? Runs just as well on both. If you change two quick settings on the ps3 you even fix the washed out look.

Mpalm.

@big_world: That means dumbing down X360 games by putting your gfx/performance cap at the PS3 level. When you develop for X360 first, you end up running into all sorts of performance walls when you bring it to PS3, and you have to go back optimizing and gutting textures to get your framerates back up to playable.

Developing on PS3 first means you get it running OK on the PS3, and the X360 is right there with you because its the superior machine (not in terms of reliability, just in terms of CPU/GPU power). This is simply pandering to the lowest common denominator. Why should X360 gamers get less performance than they could be getting?

As a Gamer, I don't want to see one system hobbled just because another can't keep up. Doing things your way, the X360 would never get pushed to its limits.

Yes, if you develop ground up for PS3 you can make a fantastic looking game. The PS3 has all the power and tools for awesome gaming. However, if you had made it ground up for X360, it would look incrementally better. If you release it for both, either the PS3 version looks worse, or the X360 is leaving performance on the table.

@Pai Pai Master: I'm guessing you didn't play Assassin's Creed on both the X360 and PS3. Ubisoft figured out nothing. Compared to X360, the PS3 version had so many FPS hitches, I'm surprised they shipped it.

ludwigk

@fearing: A lot of reasons. To get the best out of the cell you need to split work up into small portions and put it onto spus. You need to know where your memory is and how and when you're accessing it.

On a homogeneous SMP system with coherent memory, you don't NEED to do this - you can just code away happily using threads. But without knowing all those details you can never achieve the best performance either.

So if you're forced to do it, as on the CELL, any improvements you made will automagically improve code execution on the other architecture as well. Conversely, if you don't bother to worry about those things and let the cpu's smarts do it for you - then the penalty when you move to CELL is higher, since it doesn't have those 'smarts'. And I would probably bet many current (EA) games don't use the SPU's for much at all - e.g. decompression, music decoding/mixing (at most), and leave everything else as an identical code base. The cell is really designed for the SPU's to do all of the work, with the PPE just managing os-related tasks like page faults, i/o requests, memory management etc. So if you don't use it that way you're not going to get much out of it.

FWIW The CELL architecture actually makes it easier to achieve closer to peak performance for specific tasks because so much more about it is deterministic - you are guaranteed that a quad-word load from local store will take 6 cycles (latency). Always. Since you manage memory manually you can also guarantee in many cases that the memory is there and waiting before you need to use it - completely hiding memory latencies. You can get similar effects in an smp system by locking bits of the cache and so forth, but that isn't easy either, and you can still have problems with cache thrashing between all of the cores and threads which requires even more work (and hunting - since it depends on what's running at the time).

But like any advanced architecture, that moves more of the problem from hardware to software, it will take time to get the most out of it. In a year or so you will start to see a gap opening up as the CELL performance is tapped, and that other cpu wont be able to keep up with it. (e.g. perhaps Resistance 2?).

NotZed

@fearing:

Well... why are some developers able to do it then? Maybe lazy isn't the best word, but unskilled?

Mpalm.

@Snukadaman_:

Maybe because COD4 is actually a great game? Unreal hasn't done anything new... ever. Maybe people are getting tired of it? It most likely will sell on 360 though, look at halo 3! That game is worse than the original (which was brilliant).

Mpalm.

@fearing: Not to mention, MGS 4 just does not look that amazing for all the time it's been in develop. Gameplay better be out of this world or it will be the last MGS.

Soldrak

@WEGGLES90:

What precious 360 games are being delayed by the ps3 exactly? Don't say GTA either because both systems had issues.

@Manjikengo:

I've had no problems with the playstation controller... ever. In any game. Maybe you're just not a skilled gamer :(

Mpalm.

@SG79: So what if he's leaning towards one side most of the time? Are points not valid unless you praise both the PS3 and Xbox 360 equally? Sometimes it just makes sense to say that one is better than the other, if you have a problem with that then you're not really interested in serious discussion, just random ass-kissing of both consoles.

Soldrak

Okay ya fanboys, doubters, and trash-talkers, listen up:

The PS3 and the 360 have very different insides. Making a game on both is not as easy as you think. Designing a game on one and then porting it to the other involves a shit-ton of code rewriting.

The PS3 has a more powerful CPU than the 360. The 360 has a stronger GPU and more RAM than the PS3. They use their resources differently in an attempt to achieve the same result. A game written on one console would use functions and routines that are often incompatible on the other.

The XBox 360 is a lot more like your desktop PC than a PS3. A game that is developed with the PC in mind (see: Orange Box) can be ported to the 360 relatively easy. Porting it to the alien PS3 is not so easy. Not by a longshot. Games that are ported in this way often spend another month or two in test phase just to get all the kinks ironed out, and even then it feels like its falling short.

The PS3 is the first machine to use the Cell Processor. This means there's a major shortage of programmers who know how to program it. And, the function libraries that support it are much younger than the ones on your PC or 360.

So, don't criticize the developers and publishers for not making a perfect port of your favorite PC game. If you must blame someone, blame Sony for making such a different machine.

HighlanderWolf

Well the answer is just to make them all Playstation exclusives I guess.

SSJPabs

@fearing: Wow learn to type you goon!
Ugh, should probably get some sleep.

fearing

These douchebags still havent figured out how to dev for PS3?? Activision, Ubisoft, Capcom, 2K, have all taken the effort to figure out the Cell, but lazy (or cheap) EA still can't do it?

PSN ID: Kadaj24

@The Konamunist: Sad thing is, when market causes problems, the marketing always sucks anyway. I Kojima got to make his own TV ads and whatnot for Metal Gear (I know there's more to marketing than TV ads, but just for example) they'd probably be soooo much cooler than what will actually come out, E3 trailers have told me that much. But then that would also take time away from the actual came development which sucks.

fearing

@fearing:
The Konamunists can do anything! While the delays on Metal Gear Solid 4 are unfortunate, they are probably a result of the devs attempting to make the game better. Imagine if Halo 2 would have gotten just another 6 months for its single player? If improvement is the final result then I want to see everything delayed. Blame the PS3 if you wish, but after seeing the second movie for GTA IV I was so happy to hear about the delay on that game.

But seriously, you are probably right about the devs not being lazy; however, something is most likely going on at EA that creates these problems. My guess is that marketing is to blame. In my experience marketing is the worst thing for any game's development.

The Konamunist

@tamago007: You got me their. I love Sandbox games more than most :)!!

okenny :)

@SG79: Actually I do think Gears is the technically better engine even though I prefer uncharted to gears colorless and dead game world.

I don't lean. I just try to say what I think (though I tend to be heavy on the silliness and sarcasm) even if I don't go the low hanging fruit. I've said it before on Kotaku but Microsoft has really bad manufacturing practices that the consumer ends up paying for but for a game console, their hardware's design can't be topped by the PS3. I firmly believe that and if people stop focusing on games and less on hardware, I'd stop harping the same words that makes me seem so lopsided.

okenny :)

@Groodle: In what way would it reap the best rewards? A few developers have said developing for the 360 has rewards because the technologies can be used in other areas. A developer working on the system gains experience working with programs that can have many other applications in many other areas while developing on the PS3 reaps very little rewards as learning to work on the PS3 has no other applications. So far the 360 has a bigger install base by a significant amount as well so I don't think sales wise there are bigger rewards. I'd just like to see some reason or logic behind some of the random statements... but then again this is the internet, that probably ain't gonna happen.

fearing

@tamago007:

no, that's not what I really think, you got your criterium and I think is right, but I just wanted to put an example of what EA is doing with the PS3

tamago007

what really grinds my gears is how "WE" the gamers can just post stupids comments like...? I don't think EA knows how to make good games or even they don't know how to program that good or even trying hard enough. LMFAO.......!

Of course they know how to make games and of course they want to put out a game the best they can it is after all there EA name that's gonna be seen on the box. So please unless you have someting of merit to say save us all the read and keep that ignorant comment to your selves..lol

JorgieX

@okenny :):

*EA program logic thinking*

ew... your text is too complex and long, let's resume it

"Here's the way I break it down. IMA SANDBOX FANBOY"

there.

tamago007

@Zaos: Konami can do it? Metal Gear has been delayed how long now? I think they may be having their share of issues. Especially when one of the people working on the game comes out and says the game has to have day 1 sales of a million copies to break even in the long run, sounds like it's been expensive to develop for as well as time consuming. I don't think EA wants to put the PS3 version of Madden 09 out when the 360 version of 2010 is released. I not a fan of EA as much as the next guy and I'm not trying to bash the PS3 so much here (I have one myself) I just think the whole "developers must be lazy" attitude is ridiculous.

fearing

@HykCraft:

Actually, I am a Sony fanboy, and I wouldn't say that at all.

What I'd say is the 360 architecture is close to PC, and that breeds complacency. Complacency breeds staleness.

The PS3 is the system hardest to develop for, but would reap the best rewards if everyone would stop their whining and just learn how to do things tailored to it.

They will eventually anyway, and they'll save themselves, and Sony, some face in the short term by doing it sooner rather than later.

Groodle

@okenny :):

Capcom has the best approach to multiplatform development out of all companies out there. 60% of the load is done on PC architecture, then moved to a console afterwards. That's why DMC4 was up and running on the 360 so quickly, sans some LOD and shader issues.

LP on PS3 looking like crap? Funny, because aside from the early screens, the latter screens looked the same. People complained that a much later port should look better, not the same. The final game WILL look the same with the same differences between the two DMC4 versions.

I wouldn't mention NGII to nod the 360 for a good reason: it's a competent game technically, but it's not a large leap from Sigma, which primarily used souped up Xbox assets.

You're not a troll, but you do talk a lot.. leaning towards one side most of the time. I bet you think that Gears still looks better than Ucharted (prettiest console game out there) or UT3.

SG79

@okenny :): Don't know that I agree with all the logic, but I do agree that I think it's dumb that people say that such and such a system has hit it's graphical peak and game won't look much better, but this system is so complicated to develop for that games won't hit the graphical peak for sometime. Technology is always improving and changing. If the PSone and N64 were the last consoles ever made for some crazy reason there would probably still be new development technologies coming out today to make the graphics look better. That may be a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea, it just annoys me when any company makes claims like that, it just sounds like marketing BS.

fearing

So basically their programmers are grade-A retards? capcom can do it, konami can do it, why can't EA?

simply put they are lazy, i dont' hate them for it i just don't buy their games.

Zaos

GOOD! EA sucks.

PlayerX

@sycodude: so how is cod4 still selling great for both consoles......

Snukadaman_

Here's the way I break it down. Games developed for the 360 exclusively look amazing and you can't always find comparable things on the PS3. [+2 360]

Games developed exclusively on the PS3 look amazing and you can't always comparable things on the 360 [+2 PS3]

Games like Call of Duty, Orange Box, Assassin's Creed, etc were developed in parallel for the 360 and PS3 and in all cases, the 360 was superior in graphics and/or performance [+2 360]

In situations where the PS3 was the lead platform such as Burnout Paradise, the 360 port looked slightly inferior but had the same performance as the PS3 [+1 PS3]

In situations where the 360 was the lead platform and then was ported to the PS3. When the game actually survived development (not being crass, this is a fact) in games such as Madden, FIFA, Lost Planet, the 360 held superior quality and graphics for the most part. [+1 360] What about oblivion?!! When you come out a year later and you look slightly better because you got a bug fix the older version didn't get, this isn't superiority [0 PS3]

Let's talk about the fact that many high-profile games like GTA4 that are multi-platform are almost always shown on the 360 exclusively even though the developers swear that they are doing parallel development. That says something about your system's issue. [+1 360]

We have companies that have taking the tried and tested PC method of finding the most common elements of the varying graphics hardware and creating a platform that can sit on any of those and produce comparable if not indistinguishable results and deliver good games to all [+3 Capcom]

Let's visit that Lost Planet and Capcom thing one more time. If PS3 was the more capable platform then a company like Capcom who has made a visually stunning title like DMC4 would surely be able to do amazing ports to PS3 with their knowledge. So why does Lost Planet look like ass on the PS3 and why are they not even attempting to make a quick buck with a hot seller like Dead Rising two. The simple conclusion here is when Capcom went multi-platform and they found all the common strengths of each platform, the PS3 barely made the cut [+1 360][+1 Capcom]

People say that the PS3 is looking better and better and the 360 is hitting its graphic peak. Then COD4 came out and then Ninja Gaiden 2 Footage dropped, and till this day, people still talk about Gears of War. The truth is that none of these consoles have seen their real peak yet but the 360 has been able to increase in all areas to match if not exceed the PS3 so people calling this right now is foolish. "But the PS3 has Bluray and HD-DVD is dead!" Sadly enough, this is about games [+0 PS3]

Total:
[+7 360]
[+3 Capcom]
[+3 PS3]

Hate me if you must and call me names but don't call this a troll. I welcome someone to argue these points without making things personal. I just though that this should be presented to let people know that there are problems on the PS3 platform that are a challenge to companies and not everything is due to lazy developers. One last thing: When you want to compare and contrast something, please don't throw up a SCEA first party published game and then say this isn't possible on the 360 like Killzone because aside form the game being a smoke and mirror trick, it can't be done on any other platforms for completely different reasons beside hardware performance so save your fingers.

okenny :)

@killswitch:

I agree. EA = Lazy developer confirmed.

GamingNinja

@inajeep:

oh yeah, people forgot that the developers got one year working with the 360 before touching the ps3 hardware

tamago007

@Qube: I would have to agree, waaaay too many people just jump out and yell "lazy developers", but if I had to invest more work and money into a version that was going to have LESS returns on the investment I'd be pretty annoyed and probably not do that. I really don't think there are that many developers in the game industry who work as hard as it takes to get where they do and just phone it in, even if they want to be working at a different company, they are probably gonna put out the best product they can make with what they are given, on the hardware side and on the publisher backing side. I think the developer is probably one of the last people to blame.

fearing

Sounds like we got enough brain power here to develop for the PS3 huh? EA doesn't develop, they provide the money and stupid decisions maybe even the marketing. If it was so simple to lead w/ the PS3 why don't more developers do it? The reason = it may not be as easy as typing a few sentences in a blog. The 360 is easier to develop for. They have some talent that can do well on the PS3 but it will take more time to get that knowledge into the game since 360 had the headstart and obviously better dev kits.

inajeep

I'm going to throw this in there at the risk of being flamed:

I don't think we're asking all the right questions here, or pointing fingers at all the right people. Yes Infinity Ward got COD4 running just as great on the 360 as PS3, but you can't tell me blood, sweat and tears didn't go into that effort. Someone said they did it "no sweat"... you've got to be kidding.

By their own admission, Infinity Ward had to put their "best developers" on the PS3 version. And so I ask you, why *SHOULD* they have to do that? Why should the best talent go into dificult hardware instead of making the game even greater... like better AI.

Lets point some fingers at Sony and their over-engineered console, and stop calling hard working developers lazy. This is a two way street people. If EA can't put the same financial investment in the PS3 as the 360 for the same result, there is something wrong with the platform.

Qube

but seriously 2 years in to the system and this excuse doesn't really cut it anymore. even IO interactive figured out the PS3's architecture and there a much smaller company. it seems more like EA being lazy twats,

mossberg

@Ludwig: Well that sucks.

fearing

@ExtremeOne316:

"They better get Madden right this year on the PS3..."

...or there will be BLOOD like I was Daniel Day Lewis!

Truthfully, I haven't played a football game since 2K Sports stopped making them. I maintain that giving EA the exclusive rights to the NFL was an awful, unforgivable mistake.

It's like giving the McDonald's exclusive rights to cheeseburgers; sure they make a good cheeseburger, but it could easily be argued that their cheeseburgers aren't the best, and the fast-food-restaurateurs of the world only stand to gain (weight) from a competitive industry.

I would, however, argue that eating McDonald's everyday is healthier than playing an EA game everyday.

big_world

@fearing:
Yup.

Ludwig

@wicko: Games that are shipped simultaneously aren't really ports in the traditional sense. They are developed more or less concurrently.

Soldrak

@celery: Did I say I knew anything about developing on a PS3? No, I didn't. If you made that inference, that's on you. I was making an analogous statement about the concept of LEARNING. I think there has been ample time for EA to build up a team of individuals capable of and successful in learning how to develop for the PS3. Other companies have done just fine. Infinity Ward, Naughty Dog, Incog. Inc, Insomniac, Epic, etc. etc. have all done a fine job. I think that if EA are having trouble developing on PS3 architecture, then they haven't been doing their job to find the people and/or allocate the resources necessary to educate their people to be capable of doing something that is well within reasonable bounds, namely to get the same results out of the PS3 that they get out of the 360.

baked ham

@Ludwig: If that's the case then you are getting a gimped game in the long run. Porting from the PS2 worked better mainly because you got a game the original xbox could easily run with power to spare so to speak.

fearing

@manjikengo:

remember armored core? also tecmo with ninja gaiden sigma?

tamago007

@fearing:
Same reason porting from PS2 to others works better. :3

Ludwig

Wow proof read before posting self... should be ALL I've ever read, ugh, among other errors.

fearing

Why does leading off development on the ps3 and porting to the 360 work better anyway? Does it somehow make the ps3 easier to develop for, or does it mean you get a game pushing less of the limits of the 360, one that is toned down to run on the oft complained about architecture of the PS3 initially pushing that systems to whatever they can get out of it and then somehow easily ported to the 360? That is the only reason I can see why it would be easier to start on the ps3 which if that is the case then I can see why sony would want to push developers to start on their platform and port over. Does anyone know why this actually works better? I'll I've ever read is that developers should do it this way because it works better. Can someone please tell me why?

fearing

@mistasparkle:

Usually thats what happens. How else do you think someone gains experience?