Reasons for PS3 inferiormultiplats: Devs or hardware?

Simple. It's the hardware. If Sony had the 3rd party developers in mind, & if they were to make the PS3 much more easier to develop like both Nintendo & Microsoft did with the 360 & Wii, then most of the multiplats from 2006 to present, wouldn't be having many performance &/or graphics issues on the PS3 versions of games; they would most likely be very even between 360 & PS3.

3rd party developers have to put in more hours, money, etc., just to make PS3 versions of games on par with 360 versions of games (or even better than 360). They have deadlines to meet, among other things. Developers can get better results in less time on the 360. If the PS3 version looks as good as or better than the 360 version, it's because the developer spent more of their resources on that version.

While not as significant as it was, this problem still exists between Ps3 and 360. Do you guys think we should fault the developer for what could be a hardware limitation or failure? Do you believe by this point, there is something wrong with the PS3 that is causing problems with tis multiplats? I mean, the recent Crysis 2, RDR, Rage, and Skyrim as well as others had me thinking, why the gaming media (except GS) is so hard on PS3 titles holding them to X360 standards? So so you think that its right to rate games based on hardware? Do you think reviewers should note the hardware, or Dev talent in a multiplat and rate it differently depending?Pro-Gear-Spec

DS3 controller is a big one for me. I prefer to use the Xbox one.

Skyrim being the obtuse exception, 95% of multiplats run about the same on both platforms...its the devsdarkspineslayer

You forgot Bayonetta, which is more infamous than Skyrim.

Don't forget Black Ops. Ps3 version sucked online hard. IDK what it is so this is just a guess..... I think if developers were to develop a game on the ps3, then port it to other systems it (instead of develope on 360 then port to other systems) would turn out better.

ristactionjakso

There are some cases in which games have been developed on PS3 first, yet, they still turn out to be more better on 360. Developing a game for PS3 first doesn't exactly guarantee that version will be more better.

DS3 controller is a big one for me. I prefer to use the Xbox one.

lild1425

I don't think that would make a big difference for these issues and on other unrelated issues XBL>>>PSN

Developers.

On second thought, I'd rather put the blame on Sony.

After all, it is not the developers fault if a multiplat is blatantly inferior on the PS3.

Simple. It's the hardware. If Sony had the 3rd party developers in mind, & if they were to make the PS3 much more easier to develop like both Nintendo & Microsoft did with the 360 & Wii, then most of the multiplats from 2006 to present, wouldn't be having many performance &/or graphics issues on the PS3 versions of games; they would most likely be very even between 360 & PS3.

3rd party developers have to put in more hours, money, etc., just to make PS3 versions of games on par with 360 versions of games (or even better than 360). They have deadlines to meet, among other things.

garland51

assassin's creed revelations, BF3, and saints row 3 perform/look better on the PS3

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-battlefield-3-analysis/

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-assassins-creed-revelations-analysis/

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-saints-row-the-third-analysis/

its really a toss up now if a game will look better on the PS3 or 360.

Developers.

On second thought, I'd rather put the blame on Sony.

After all, it is not the developers fault if a multiplat is blatantly inferior on the PS3.

LORD_BLACKGULT

It depends on the devs and which console is the lead platform.

Square-Enix made the 360 version of FFXIII 576p with compressed 576p FMV's and with no anti-aliasing. But the PS3 version was 720p in-game and had 1080p cutscenes.

They developed the game with only the PS3 in mind, and took advantage of the systems strong points. Then lazily ported it to the 360 across 3 discs.

Could they have spent extra time, money and resources making it up to par with the PS3 version? Yes. Did they think it was worth it? No.

The PS3 version sold almost 5 million more copies than the 360 version. But that was destined to happen when the 360 is ignored in Japan.

So yeah, it sometimes depends on the developers.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

Simple. It's the hardware. If Sony had the 3rd party developers in mind, & if they were to make the PS3 much more easier to develop like both Nintendo & Microsoft did with the 360 & Wii, then most of the multiplats from 2006 to present, wouldn't be having many performance &/or graphics issues on the PS3 versions of games; they would most likely be very even between 360 & PS3.

3rd party developers have to put in more hours, money, etc., just to make PS3 versions of games on par with 360 versions of games (or even better than 360). They have deadlines to meet, among other things.

ZoomZoom2490

That's because the developer spent more of their resources on that version. And besides, the PS3 version of FFXIII got more development time than the 360 version did.

assassin's creed revelations, BF3, and saints row 3 perform/look better on the PS3arbitor365

Wrong. Revelations is more better on 360, & Battlefield 3 is at a tie between each other.

Link.

[QUOTE="LORD_BLACKGULT"]

Developers.

On second thought, I'd rather put the blame on Sony.

After all, it is not the developers fault if a multiplat is blatantly inferior on the PS3.

ZoomZoom2490

It depends on the devs and which console is the lead platform.

Square-Enix made the 360 version of FFXIII 576p with compressed 576p FMV's and with no anti-aliasing. But the PS3 version was 720p in-game and had 1080p cutscenes.

They developed the game with only the PS3 in mind, and took advantage of the systems strong points. Then lazily ported it to the 360 across 3 discs.

Could they have spent extra time, money and resources making it up to par with the PS3 version? Yes. Did they think it was worth it? No.

The PS3 version sold almost 5 million more copies than the 360 version. But that was destined to happen when the 360 is ignored in Japan.

So yeah, it sometimes depends on the developers.

Tikeio

people have forgatten or maybe just dont know how gaming used to be back in the days.

t seems like people dont mind getting laughed and spitted on, some actually like it. its sad how anyone can say its not devs fault when games dont run well, lol, its so sad tosee people heresaying that its not devs fault but its the hardware. damn, what a waste of air people breath these days.

Its a combination of both with regards to Skyrim some artcle stated something about how ps3 and xbox 360 utilize their memory or soemthing like that, but at the same time Bethesad a really crappy devs

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

[QUOTE="LORD_BLACKGULT"]

Developers.

On second thought, I'd rather put the blame on Sony.

After all, it is not the developers fault if a multiplat is blatantly inferior on the PS3.

red12355

the harder to program thing is bs. if that was true explain UC1 back in the days, or MGS4, and others.

devs are just looking to make maximun proft.

back in the days this was not allowed, how they get away with it today is really suprising.

I would argue there's a monetary aspect as well, a combination of inflated budgets and a difficult platform for the PS3 generally means multi plats built on 360/PC architecture the PS3 will be shafted.hiphops_savior

Skyrim being the obtuse exception, 95% of multiplats run about the same on both platforms...its the devsdarkspineslayer

I'd say 95% of multiplats run inferior on the PS3.

It's the hardware.

[QUOTE="darkspineslayer"]Skyrim being the obtuse exception, 95% of multiplats run about the same on both platforms...its the devsGiantAssPanda

I'd say 95% of multiplats run inferior on the PS3.

It's the hardware.

the harder to program thing is bs. if that was true explain UC1 back in the days, or MGS4, and others.ZoomZoom2490

Simple. They were exclusive games on the PS3, & not multiplats.

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]the harder to program thing is bs. if that was true explain UC1 back in the days, or MGS4, and others.garland51

Simple. They were exclusive games on the PS3, & not multiplats.

that's my point, there is nothing wrong with the hardware.

devs who release crappy running games for full price are to blame.

imo, those who believe its the other way around are just typical troll fanboys. .

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]the harder to program thing is bs. if that was true explain UC1 back in the days, or MGS4, and others.ZoomZoom2490

Simple. They were exclusive games on the PS3, & not multiplats.

that's my point, there is nothing wrong with the hardware.

devs who release crappy running games for full price are to blame.

imo, those who believe its the other way around are just typical troll fanboys. .

LOL. Yes, there is something wrong with the hardware. We're not talking about Sony or their developers here. THEY'RE the ones who designed the hardware, not 3rd party developers. They're the same ones who made the PS2 console a hard console for 3rd party devs to develop their games on; they just made PS3 development about 2-3 times worse for them.

Sony left the 3rd party developers high & dry in the beginning (or before) of their launch to figure out how to run the games on their machine properly & to figure out how to untap the full potential of the PS3 (which I think is baloney), while Microsoft & Nintendo were the ones offering & supporting 3rd party developers by giving them development kits among other things.

Both of them.

Sony for making the hardware extremely hard to develop for and the developers for making technically inferior games for the PS3.

Sonys fault for making hard to develop on the PS3 I would have Sadthat 4 years ago, but right now it aint sonys fault anymore the PS3 has been long on the market for developers to invest money and figure out the ps3 just look at Rage when it came out on PC whom do you blame the PC for getting a poor port of Rage or the developers. Skyrim is a mess on all 3 systems there is a reason a patch has been realesed on all 3 platforms

it's funny that the brainwashed cows are pretending it's not the hardware's fault when even sony themselves admitted that the ps3's architecture unreasonably difficult to develop for.

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]I would argue there's a monetary aspect as well, a combination of inflated budgets and a difficult platform for the PS3 generally means multi plats built on 360/PC architecture the PS3 will be shafted.ZoomZoom2490

TC the truth hurts so I'll break it to you. In GS there are PS3 fanboys however us other owners will have something we want to tell you.

The PS3 Has games, and We can play them. That's all we care, we don't give a sh!t if the xbox can load the game .5 seconds faster in fact we don't even bother to know if it's true or not why? because we can just play the game and not give a fck. :lol: These fanboys *shakes head in disapproval*

The only major difference between the xbox360 and the Ps3 besides exclusives is the fact that the xbox owners are usually people that really really really really love video games. While the PS3 owner may spend about 150 dollars in video games a year the xbox owner would spend about 250+ ( thus why games usually sell more on the xbox) It's not the machine it's the consumers. I felt like typing not like anyone in here is going to care :lol:

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

[QUOTE="garland51"] if that was true ff13 would look better on x360. it all depends which system the game is build from ground up on. wow, im suprised that people still dont get it, even after 6-7 years, i think its sad.

garland51

That's because the developer spent more of their resources on that version. And besides, the PS3 version of FFXIII got more development time than the 360 version did.

assassin's creed revelations, BF3, and saints row 3 perform/look better on the PS3arbitor365

Wrong. Revelations is more better on 360, & Battlefield 3 is at a tie between each other.

Link.

Another account? Wow.

PS2 was also famously difficult to develop for, yet we didn't see the same problem.:| Though honestly, I think with the 360 and PS3 so close this gen in sales and capability, fanboys have latched way too much on minor differences between multiplats. With most games, the differences are trivial. Huge differences are naturally the fault of the dev, whether the 360 or the PS3 (and in some cases the PC :evil: )got the shaft. After all, this far in, I think most reasonable people would admit we've seen enough evidence to show both can provide nearly identical experiences. If you're charging the same price for a product, you should commit yourself to delivering the same experience. If you can't, don't bother trying.

Its both, Sony creating harder to dev hardware and multiplat devs not willing to spend extra money and put extra effort on 1 version of the games.

[QUOTE="darkspineslayer"]Skyrim being the obtuse exception, 95% of multiplats run about the same on both platforms...its the devsGiantAssPanda

I'd say 95% of multiplats run inferior on the PS3.

It's the hardware.

Another account? Wow.

DrHousesCane

Another account? Wow.

DrHousesCane

After playing tons of multiplats on ps3 I would say its a devs fault. Since I dont see a huge difference in alot of the games I own that are multiplat.

[QUOTE="darkspineslayer"]Skyrim being the obtuse exception, 95% of multiplats run about the same on both platforms...its the devsGiantAssPanda

I'd say 95% of multiplats run inferior on the PS3.

It's the hardware.

Inferior in you gatta look hard and take every little pixel in account then yea.

[QUOTE="DrHousesCane"]

Another account? Wow.

Pro-Gear-Spec

[QUOTE="Pro-Gear-Spec"][QUOTE="DrHousesCane"]

Another account? Wow.

DrHousesCane

[QUOTE="DrHousesCane"][QUOTE="Pro-Gear-Spec"] If you have a smart remark you would like to make say it to my face or stay on topic.Pro-Gear-Spec

Can you guys stop going off topic in this thread?Anyway I'm going to side with DrHouseCane on this matter. Your account looks rather suspicious because of the following reasons

1. You're a new user with a pro lemming name

2. You're bringing up a topic a certain bandodger loved to bring up to annoy the cows and everyone else on this board.

I'm watching you anyway.

Now back on topic. I would say it's the devs/publishers fault. They don't maximize the amount of time they should be spending on the PS3 port to make it equal to the 360 version.

Another account? Wow.

DrHousesCane

It's definitely Abonsabo/ForzaGearFace :lol:

Member since December 6, 2011..........really?

Another subtle anti-Sony thread :lol:

[QUOTE="DrHousesCane"]

Another account? Wow.

KingsofQueens

It's definitely Abonsabo/ForzaGearFace :lol:

Member since December 6, 2011..........really?

Another subtle anti-Sony thread :lol:

Look at his posting history.We need more info before we declare him a bandodger.

Holy batman! Hypocrisy!

So when a multi plat is superior on the PS3, its because the developer ignored the 360 version.

But when a multi plat is superior on the 360 it proves that the 360 is more powerful.

Lol

Are all lemmings this bad, brimming with hypocrisy and double standards?actionjunkie10

LMAO. How is this "hypocrisy" or a "double standard," exactly? I never even said that they ignored the 360 version of FFXIII, I said because they spent more time on the PS3 version & less time on the 360 version of FFXIII.

And I never said that 360 is more powerful at all due to another multiplat being better on 360. Learn to read before you hit the submit button. Doofus.