Developer's half-assing PS3 copies..?

No keep it here. If moved to SW, you wont get any real answers. Just fanboyish remarks. Sure you sill get that here as well, just in way lesser numbers.

When your system is the most unfamiliar system to develop for, this is what happens. Why go back and spend "x" amount of days and hours to correct the PS3 version when the 360 and PC versions are basically smoothly running.

The reason for many half-assed PS3 ports is because Xbox360 is much easier to work and program on due to its architecture,so devs make their games on it first,then just quickly port them over to PS3 and PC,while the game suffers,Skyrim and Black Ops being best examples(if it makes you PS3 gamers feel better,PC community also got lousy Skyrim and Black Ops ports).

It's because devs are too lazy to make proper PS3 game. Not fanboy, just fact. The 360 is easier to develop for because it's technology is very familiar. PS3 technology is very unique and devs are just too lazy to learn how to utilize it. We live in 2011 and the part that pisses me off the most is that they are still using this excuse when the PS3 has been out for 5 years!

I was on the fence between a PS3 and a 360 for some time. GT5 was ultimately what decided it for me (and yes, I know about Forza..). I sometimes wonder if I should have gone for the 360, but overall, I am happy with my PS3...usually games get patched eventaully.

For those who don't remember Arena and Daggerfall, back in THOSE days, most games didn't get patched...people didn't have access to the Internet for the most part (and broadband was limited to T1s...pricey). And both those PC games had massive bugs...

Before you presume to call a developer lazy, keep in mind that their schedules are determined by the bean-counters. Most developers would LOVE not releasing a game before it's perfect. Consider the stories you hear behind Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire. Many of those companies are sweatshops, and oftentimes, in the gaming industry, you WILL get fired.

There's a LOT of hate I've seen on ID, but from what I've read, they do things the right way. Programmers first and great QA, I loved Rage and it ran great on the PS3. Ironically, it was the PC version that was a fail, and that was due to drivers (one of the reasons I lost interest in chasing squirrels on keeping PC hardware up to date).

What the other posts said, is easier to make on 360 thus is cheaper and typically the lead platform. But hey free online beats sub.

not worth the extra time when the ps3 games in general don't sell as well as the others.

Yes and no. The publishers put a lot of pressure on the developers to have all versions released at the same time. I'm also sure that Sony wouldn't like it if the 360 and PC versions were released while the PS3's was on hold.

What the other posts said, is easier to make on 360 thus is cheaper and typically the lead platform. But hey free online beats sub.

Bikouchu35

Basically this. However, in most games the differences are minor, only in a few cases are games on the PS3 vastly inferior than their 360 counterparts (usually Bethesda games).

It's because devs are too lazy to make proper PS3 game. Not fanboy, just fact. The 360 is easier to develop for because it's technology is very familiar. PS3 technology is very unique and devs are just too lazy to learn how to utilize it. We live in 2011 and the part that pisses me off the most is that they are still using this excuse when the PS3 has been out for 5 years!

The_Wild_Tiger

Xbox 360 has 512mbs of ram while the PS3 has 2 seperate 256Mbs of ram. Thats why the PS3 can never have cross game chat, it literally cant support it. So while the ps3 can use up to 256mbs the 360 can go above that if needed. Its the ram, its always been the ram and will continue to be for the rest of the PS3's life. Hopefully the PS4 will be up to 1gb+ by the time it drops.caketoo

I've noticed in many recent releases such as Skyrim and Black Ops that they don't seem to be up to par with their 360 counter parts. Why is that? I don't intend on starting a debate or anything, but i just dont understand why developer's don't do a decent job on PS3 versions when it's a better gaming system than the 360. mach1_stang92

[QUOTE="mach1_stang92"]I've noticed in many recent releases such as Skyrim and Black Ops that they don't seem to be up to par with their 360 counter parts. Why is that? I don't intend on starting a debate or anything, but i just dont understand why developer's don't do a decent job on PS3 versions when it's a better gaming system than the 360. ShangTsung17

[QUOTE="ShangTsung17"]

[QUOTE="mach1_stang92"]I've noticed in many recent releases such as Skyrim and Black Ops that they don't seem to be up to par with their 360 counter parts. Why is that? I don't intend on starting a debate or anything, but i just dont understand why developer's don't do a decent job on PS3 versions when it's a better gaming system than the 360. Kurushio

I'm not 100% certain, but I assume it has something to do with the PS3 being harder to work with - especially when it's a multiplatform title. ColdExistence

instead of the 360 with its tri-core design (each core is equal with 3 cores and 3 logical threads), the CELL gets treated as a HUGELY powerful single core with up to 7 logical threads to multitask. such a crazy design hadnt been seen since the last multicore style machine, the Sega Saturn. why do you think only PS3 exclusives look and run better and multiplats always run worse (expect final fantasy... not enough room on the dvds for FF epic cutscenes= epic compression!!). Ultimately its only devs that take the time to learn the ins and outs get the best results (ie naughty dog, Guerilla, Insomniac, Factor 5). though to be fair, good graphics doesnt always equal good game....how many Forza games did xbox owners get to play while PS3 owners were waiting for a COMPLETE version of Gran Turismo.......

They've been doing this since the launch of the ps3. They say the xbox is more friendlier and easier to develope games onthan the ps3. So, the port games from xbox to ps3 and thats why they look crap. Anthoer reason is that developers know that a multiplatform game will sell better on the xbox

totally agree with TC. it's not a recent problem though.... for the entire generation PS3 has had no lack of poorly optimised multiplats. the problems range from minor to major, and fortunately no releases were broken beyond hope so far. but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. it might be for some, but definitely not for me. i don't pay to get disrespected with sub-standard quality.

well since the poor xbox has lower technology, devs build games using it cause if they start with the ps3, then it would be really hard to put on the xbox especially if they exceed the xbox's cd memory limit.

the only game where i thought the difference was notable was in skyrim (at my friends house). otherwise every multiplat game works pretty well on both systems.

bottomline is it shouldn't be this way.. to put it another way, this is horse sh!t.. we pay twice as much money for a ps3 system cause we expect better quality only to watch devs bow down to the 360, don't let them fool ya.. they COULD make a better ps3 version for every game, they're just lazy i guess.. what i wanna know is if xbox 360 is such a better system, why isn't it the most expensive??? just seems like we're getting robbed...

bottomline is it shouldn't be this way.. to put it another way, this is horse sh!t.. we pay twice as much money for a ps3 system cause we expect better quality only to watch devs bow down to the 360, don't let them fool ya.. they COULD make a better ps3 version for every game, they're just lazy i guess.. what i wanna know is if xbox 360 is such a better system, why isn't it the most expensive??? just seems like we're getting robbed...

ShangTsung17

[QUOTE="ShangTsung17"]

bottomline is it shouldn't be this way.. to put it another way, this is horse sh!t.. we pay twice as much money for a ps3 system cause we expect better quality only to watch devs bow down to the 360, don't let them fool ya.. they COULD make a better ps3 version for every game, they're just lazy i guess.. what i wanna know is if xbox 360 is such a better system, why isn't it the most expensive??? just seems like we're getting robbed...

MethodManFTW

I don't think that developers are baised against PS3. The Cell processor doesn't always allow for a smooth translation.

You can play on HDTV's, (Steam is even making a 10ft display) most the people I follow in the games journalist industry are doing that now.. A lot of games come with controls pre-mapped now.. And if you have a good PC you can run pretty much every game at 60fps and 1080p.. Something our consoles don't come even close to for the most part... But yeah, I dunno how good your PC is, but you might want to look into it more, sounds like a lot of issues you have with it have been fixed by now. I would totally game on the PC if I had the money... but I don't. :PMethodManFTW

The devs are being lazy, Sony devs have done an amazing job with their exclusives, third parties could def do much better, but prefer to give less effort for more money. But its mostly because of the Xbox's limits of the DVD. If MS wanted a great looking non compressed version of FFXIII on their system, square would have to add a few more DVDs to match the quality thats on the Bluray for the PS3 and thats something that they didn't want to do.

Anyone ever noticed that most (if not, all) games don't come with a second or more disc(s) to switch this gen? It seems that devs are trying to cut costs by putting the entire game on one DVD and compress it as much as possible. PS3 games like MGS4, GOW3, UC2, UC3, FFXIII look so great and sound great cause they have features that are uncompressed and in result, look and sound awesome compared to multiplat games.

The devs are being lazy, Sony devs have done an amazing job with their exclusives, third parties could def do much better, but prefer to give less effort for more money. But its mostly because of the Xbox's limits of the DVD. If MS wanted a great looking non compressed version of FFXIII on their system, square would have to add a few more DVDs to match the quality thats on the Bluray for the PS3 and thats something that they didn't want to do.

Anyone ever noticed that most (if not, all) games don't come with a second or more disc(s) to switch this gen? It seems that devs are trying to cut costs by putting the entire game on one DVD and compress it as much as possible. PS3 games like MGS4, GOW3, UC2, UC3, FFXIII look so great and sound great cause they have features that are uncompressed and in result, look and sound awesome compared to multiplat games.

WR_Platinum

i agree with you on everything. MGS4 just took my breath away back in 2008. amazing game and if it was on the 360 it would have ruined it completley

[QUOTE="WR_Platinum"]

The devs are being lazy, Sony devs have done an amazing job with their exclusives, third parties could def do much better, but prefer to give less effort for more money. But its mostly because of the Xbox's limits of the DVD. If MS wanted a great looking non compressed version of FFXIII on their system, square would have to add a few more DVDs to match the quality thats on the Bluray for the PS3 and thats something that they didn't want to do.

Anyone ever noticed that most (if not, all) games don't come with a second or more disc(s) to switch this gen? It seems that devs are trying to cut costs by putting the entire game on one DVD and compress it as much as possible. PS3 games like MGS4, GOW3, UC2, UC3, FFXIII look so great and sound great cause they have features that are uncompressed and in result, look and sound awesome compared to multiplat games.

almossbb

i agree with you on everything. MGS4 just took my breath away back in 2008. amazing game and if it was on the 360 it would have ruined it completley

having it on the xbox would not have ruined such a boring movie. MGS4, play for 5 minutes, watch 15 minute cutscene. rinse and repeat. i own it and never want to play it again. i would rate it simulataneously one of the best games this gen and the worst game this gen. With most cutscenes being realtime, it could easily squeeze on the xbox with todays tech. maybe not in 2008, but by now it could easily (Just look at skyrim)

[QUOTE="almossbb"]

[QUOTE="WR_Platinum"]

The devs are being lazy, Sony devs have done an amazing job with their exclusives, third parties could def do much better, but prefer to give less effort for more money. But its mostly because of the Xbox's limits of the DVD. If MS wanted a great looking non compressed version of FFXIII on their system, square would have to add a few more DVDs to match the quality thats on the Bluray for the PS3 and thats something that they didn't want to do.

Anyone ever noticed that most (if not, all) games don't come with a second or more disc(s) to switch this gen? It seems that devs are trying to cut costs by putting the entire game on one DVD and compress it as much as possible. PS3 games like MGS4, GOW3, UC2, UC3, FFXIII look so great and sound great cause they have features that are uncompressed and in result, look and sound awesome compared to multiplat games.

kungfool69

i agree with you on everything. MGS4 just took my breath away back in 2008. amazing game and if it was on the 360 it would have ruined it completley

having it on the xbox would not have ruined such a boring movie. MGS4, play for 5 minutes, watch 15 minute cutscene. rinse and repeat. i own it and never want to play it again. i would rate it simulataneously one of the best games this gen and the worst game this gen. With most cutscenes being realtime, it could easily squeeze on the xbox with todays tech. maybe not in 2008, but by now it could easily (Just look at skyrim)

It still wouldn't, you even said that it would squeeze onto the disc. I still have yet to see a xbox exclusize that comes close to a PS3 exclusize. I have been a MGS fan for years and something that I have noticed is that people who don't like it are not really fans of the series and played the game because others said it was awesome and got good reviews. It followed the same game formula as the others but extended.

To anwser the question, it has already been answered in some other posts. It has been noted by other devs that it is significantly harder to develop for the PS3 which takes up more time, and that takes up more money. Developers are given a deadline with what they have to develop certain parts of the game if not the entire game. With this they develop for the 360 which is more familar to most developers which is faster. Then they port the game to play on the PS3. This causes problems though because the game systems are different and run differently. Developers don't really care about this, (if they do they just don't tell us) because the average gamers isn't going to notice the difference between the two consoles, (or even spend the time to find the difference between the two) so since nobody is going to notice and since it really won't matter in the long run why take up the time in optimizing it for the PS3 as well? It will still be sold, still be played with only gamers like us complaining about it, if we were to count how many people who do notice the subtle differences between the two it probably wouldn't change their sales numbers in a significant enough way for them to change the way they devleop their games.

Ports are just bad in general for any game. It has been said before how PS3 has been getting the bad end of the porting, but Final Fantasy was bad on the 360 because Square Enix either ported it over to the 360 or they didn't want to put it on two discs to keep it up to par. From what I heard BF3 had two discs for the 360 version if that tells you anything about the 360. The PS3 is stronger but that is only true if you actually develop for the systems strengths. Look at MGS4, the Uncharted Series, Playstation Move, Killzone 2 and 3, Gran Turismo. The developers spent the time to work with the system and they pulled the best out of the system.

Ok, i'm flat out tired of seeing threads like this. none of you are developers so stop pretending like you know your s**t. play one game on two different pcs, and the results will never be the exact same. same goes for consoles, shut up and deal with it.tab134

one last point needs to be settled though, just because a game takes up for disc space does not mean its actually a good game.....

I totally agree with this topic, majority of multiplatform, ps3 version sucks period, Skyrim is best example of how bad it can get...Battlefield3 (16 player only Multiplayer wtf..), Although ps3 is superior hardware in many ways.

I blame both Sony (for making it so damn hard to develop) and the developers for not investing enough into ps3 versions and actually releasing garabage to ps3 users. I'm seriosuly considering xbox720 nextGen, as this seems to be the trend.

I totally agree with this topic, majority of multiplatform, ps3 version sucks period, Skyrim is best example of how bad it can get...Battlefield3 (16 player only Multiplayer wtf..), Although ps3 is superior hardware in many ways.

I blame both Sony (for making it so damn hard to develop) and the developers for not investing enough into ps3 versions and actually releasing garabage to ps3 users. I'm seriosuly considering xbox720 nextGen, as this seems to be the trend.

Lazy_Marine

You blame Sony for being innovative with their console? With new hardware comes a learning curve for devs. For the most part this gen, devs have decided to just not learn the ps3 hardware and just do what what they can to make a 360 port run (well or not well) on it. They had another learning curve like this when the psone was released and look how successful it was.

Because the PS3 is a better console (technically more powerful) and more difficult to develop games for possibly.

I don't know, because I don't even notice. I can never tell the difference between both versions of the game (in most cases) if I play a game on my PS3 and go play it on my freinds 360 at his house, I can't see a damn bit of difference. It's so minor that it's invisible and I don't even care, and I didn't have any issues with Black Ops. Skyrim is buggy becasue it's a Bethesda game, but I agree that Bethesda should have done abetter job with it in testing. But the 360 version has it's own share of issues too, but the xbox fanboys won't admit it.

Anyway, like I said before. Most devs seem to have no problem with the PS3 and most games look the same across both platforms (again minor differences only fanboys care about), so I have no complaints with PS3 multiplats. Just a few bad ports but that's the devs fault, and those games get fixed in updates anyway like Fallout 3 did. And Skyrim will be fixed soon too.

Ok, i'm flat out tired of seeing threads like this. none of you are developers so stop pretending like you know your s**t. play one game on two different pcs, and the results will never be the exact same. same goes for consoles, shut up and deal with it.tab134