Latest Pach Attack Claims Most Multiplats are Better on 360.

For those of you who don't know, Pach Attack is a Q&A show on Gametrailers.com hosted by Michael Pachter , a game industry financial analyst for Wedbush Securities.

On his latest 128th episode a gamer asked why most multiplat games, most recently being Red Dead Redemption, look and play better on 360.

Now Pach honestly stated he only played the 360 version, and has no info about any inferior gameplay on the PS3 version, but he said because the PS3 has 7 separate cores to the 360's 3 sync cores it's easier to go port from 3 cores to 7, but porting from 7 cores to 3 is much harder.

He went on to say that Rockstar games had 360's version of GTA 4 ready to release, but the PS3 version was very buggy and because Sony had a contract with Rockstar that they couldn't release GTA 4 on 360 first, 360 fans had to wait another 6 months for Rockstar to work out the bugs of the PS3 version.

I've heard many times how developers would say that the 360 is the easiest system to program for, because the architecture is nearly identical to a PC, but the PS3 is a constant uphill battle to program for, so i guess that settles that question, anyone who owns both 360 and PS3 just save the PS3 for the exclusives and get all the multiplats on 360, why have a lesser game if you don't have to.

Do you have a link?

Also, why is an industry analyst talking about which way is easier to port a game?

One of the few things I agree with.

Thought we all knew multiplats were better on the 360? fastr

For the most part they look the same... unless your a fanboy. But yeah you do have the odd exception like RDR, and FF13 for the PS3.

Thought we all knew multiplats were better on the 360? fastr

For the most part they look the same... unless your a fanboy. But yeah you do have the odd exception like RDR, and FF13 for the PS3.

GTSaiyanjin2

LOL @ denial

[QUOTE="GTSaiyanjin2"]

For the most part they look the same... unless your a fanboy. But yeah you do have the odd exception like RDR, and FF13 for the PS3.

alfredooo

LOL @ denial

Pach may be off with his predictions most of the time, but he never lies.

But then again, we all know that most multiplats are better on the 360.

What's shocking is how much the PS3 held back GTA4.

If he thinks the CPUs are the reasons why they look worse on PS3, then he dosent know WTF hes talking about. How can a CPU effect how a game LOOKS? that would be the GPU and RAM, not the CPUAlso, where did he say they all look better on 360?

If he thinks the CPUs are the reasons why they look worse on PS3, then he dosent know WTF hes talking about. How can a CPU effect how a game LOOKS? that would be the GPU and RAM, not the CPUAlso, where did he say they all look better on 360?

XboximusPrime

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

If he thinks the CPUs are the reasons why they look worse on PS3, then he dosent know WTF hes talking about. How can a CPU effect how a game LOOKS? that would be the GPU and RAM, not the CPUAlso, where did he say they all look better on 360?

Punjabiking101

run better as far as Framerate and all that, but not visuals. Visuals are what GPUs do. He made it sound like they LOOK better because of the CPU. He didnt say run smoother or anything like that, he said LOOK better.

This is obviously true and has been obvious. Multiplats are important because most games are multiplats and this is why the 360 has beaten PS3 this gen.IAMSERIAL

Unless it's gameplay related, it isn't a big deal. Things that should decide what system you purchase a game on include bugs, community & the system your friends use. Bayonetta, for example, is hands down superior on the 360. RDR, Mafia 2 etc may have very minor graphical differences, but it won't change the experience of the game.Graphics are given too much importance in gaming these days. An example would be the PS3 version of DA:O being rated higher than the 360 version because it looks better, even though it suffers frame rate issues while the 360 version does not. Basically, for this review, graphics > stability.

Anyway, except for a very select few games, there isn't any considerable difference between multiplats.

Well even Patcher can't be wrong every single time.SilentlyMad

Do you get a check from MS every month?

Pach may be off with his predictions most of the time, but he never lies.

But then again, we all know that most multiplats are better on the 360.

What's shocking is how much the PS3 held back GTA4.

KarateeeChop

How the hell did it hold it back? I want proof, not Fanboy BS. Did you ever think that R* isnt that great at deving on multiple consoles at the same time?

This is obviously true and has been obvious. Multiplats are important because most games are multiplats and this is why the 360 has beaten PS3 this gen.IAMSERIAL

yeah, by a whole 3.8 million. Honestly, thats not THAT significant.

[QUOTE="KarateeeChop"]

Pach may be off with his predictions most of the time, but he never lies.

But then again, we all know that most multiplats are better on the 360.

What's shocking is how much the PS3 held back GTA4.

XboximusPrime

How the hell did it hold it back? I want proof, not Fanboy BS. Did you ever think that R* isnt that great at deving on multiple consoles at the same time?

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="KarateeeChop"]

Pach may be off with his predictions most of the time, but he never lies.

But then again, we all know that most multiplats are better on the 360.

What's shocking is how much the PS3 held back GTA4.

FIipMode

How the hell did it hold it back? I want proof, not Fanboy BS. Did you ever think that R* isnt that great at deving on multiple consoles at the same time?

then why the hell did he say the PS3 version held it back?

360 would really be in trouble if it had the worst multiplats AND very few good exclusives. Consider it lucky.Parasomniac

was that a shot at PS3? if so, lol wut?

360 would really be in trouble if it had the worst multiplats AND very few good exclusives. Consider it lucky.Parasomniac

[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]360 would really be in trouble if it had the worst multiplats AND very few good exclusives. Consider it lucky.fastr

I honestly thought that was a zing at Wii :P

[QUOTE="fastr"][QUOTE="Parasomniac"]360 would really be in trouble if it had the worst multiplats AND very few good exclusives. Consider it lucky.FragTycoon

I honestly thought that was a zing at Wii :P

I took it as a Zing at PS3.

I thought it was a zing at the 360.... :/

Anyway, most multiplats are better on the lead platform. In the event of simultaneous development, in some cases the 360 version will be better, because the 360 is easier to code for.

The differences are generally marginal, with the exception of some exceptions.

For those of you who don't know, Pach Attack is a Q&A show on Gametrailers.com hosted by Michael Pachter , a game industry financial analyst for Wedbush Securities.

On his latest 128th episode a gamer asked why most multiplat games, most recently being Red Dead Redemption, look and play better on 360.

Now Pach honestly stated he only played the 360 version, and has no info about any inferior gameplay on the PS3 version, but he said because the PS3 has 7 separate cores to the 360's 3 sync cores it's easier to go port from 3 cores to 7, but porting from 7 cores to 3 is much harder.

He went on to say that Rockstar games had 360's version of GTA 4 ready to release, but the PS3 version was very buggy and because Sony had a contract with Rockstar that they couldn't release GTA 4 on 360 first, 360 fans had to wait another 6 months for Rockstar to work out the bugs of the PS3 version.

I've heard many times how developers would say that the 360 is the easiest system to program for, because the architecture is nearly identical to a PC, but the PS3 is a constant uphill battle to program for, so i guess that settles that question, anyone who owns both 360 and PS3 just save the PS3 for the exclusives and get all the multiplats on 360, why have a lesser game if you don't have to.

Slimmin360

I haven't played RDR on PS3 - is it really that much worse as some people on this thread are implying? Are we talking Bayonetta type issues or just slightly more jaggies/worse textures?

I thought it was a zing at the 360....

shinrabanshou

Yet, they are all better on pc

[QUOTE="IAMSERIAL"]This is obviously true and has been obvious. Multiplats are important because most games are multiplats and this is why the 360 has beaten PS3 this gen.XboximusPrime

yeah, by a whole 3.8 million. Honestly, thats not THAT significant.

I haven't played RDR on PS3 - is it really that much worse as some people on this thread are implying? Are we talking Bayonetta type issues or just slightly more jaggies/worse textures?

real_nimrod

No. You gatta understand when SW post a thread about one version being better then another the fanboys of the "winning" version like to exadruate alot and I mean ALOT. I have the ps3 version of RDR and iv seent he vids of comparasions all I see is less grass on the ps3 version and proboly a little brighter thats it. Its no where near a boyonetta set up or even orange box. Majortity of multiplats looks pretty much the dam same. Just x crowd of fanboys like to blow things up more then it is.

360 would really be in trouble if it had the worst multiplats AND very few good exclusives. Consider it lucky.Parasomniac

Lucky? So Microsoft being focused on unified architecture all this time and trying to make the 360 as easy to develop for as possible is actually luck?

I haven't played RDR on PS3 - is it really that much worse as some people on this thread are implying? Are we talking Bayonetta type issues or just slightly more jaggies/worse textures?

real_nimrod

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="IAMSERIAL"]This is obviously true and has been obvious. Multiplats are important because most games are multiplats and this is why the 360 has beaten PS3 this gen.Download_Me

yeah, by a whole 3.8 million. Honestly, thats not THAT significant.

Michael Pachter said it because it's true.

If he thinks the CPUs are the reasons why they look worse on PS3, then he dosent know WTF hes talking about. How can a CPU effect how a game LOOKS? that would be the GPU and RAM, not the CPUAlso, where did he say they all look better on 360?

XboximusPrime

If a console is design to use up 7 cores, but only using up 3 instead, of course it will look worse. Its just common sense

We already know that the 360 is easier to program for and MOST games isnt a big difference, unless ur a fanboy or a graphic whore that stares at every single little detail.