Reasons for PS3 inferiormultiplats: Devs or hardware?

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

super600

Fair enough.

Seems suspicious, though.

Its the hardware. In a world full of multiplats the design of the consoles really need to have uniformity sadly and the way the ps3 is set up is just so different from pc and 360. Devs have to put a ton of extra time working on the ps3 version of games just to try and get them up to par. I code myself and i know the challenges that can come with it. Im tired of people calling devs like Bethesda lazy and unskilled when in reality they are world class programmers. Its miracle that a game like skyrim works at all. Blame Sony for doing what they did with the ps3 because realistically the ps3 will not be the only focus when it comes to development.

I blame Sony, pretty much its their fault for not working with 3rd party devs with their PS3. Instead they said here is what we are putting out now deal with it. So 3rd parties did n are saying what Sony said to them, this what we are giving you so deal with it . In turn they are known as a crap dev team for doing what Sony did to them. I guess the ps3 is crap then going by that logic. Fair is Fair !

I'd say its the devs. Other then the split RAM, the PS3 is equal to the 360 in power for the most part and has the advantage of the cell CPU and Blu Ray.

In general, whichever platform is the lead platform is going to look slightly better. Most games tend to have 360 as lead platform, but games like LA Noire with PS3 as lead will look better on PS3. Other games like Dragon Age look better, but its just a rarity since I believe the PC was lead platform, and I think the 360's architecture is closer to a PC's instead of more "out there" like the PS3's.

So its a mix, but mostly devs. If the devs want to make PS3 lead platform, then its going to look slightly, slightly better on PS3 every time (just like how 360 being lead make that version look slightly, slightly better) unless they put extra effort on the 360 version for some reason. Some ports also seem to be rather lazily done, but mostly not since the early days of PS3.

Devs. Most PS3 multi-plats are just 360 ports and of course they aren't the best as such. Can't really blame the hardware if the devs aren't willing to invest time into it.

The fact that the vast majority of multiplatform games are almost identical (excluding tiny graphical differences that mean nothing) means that its the developers. Sure, it would've helped if Sony made the PS3 hardware easier to develop for, but it doesn't give developers an excuse to be lazy.

The fact that the vast majority of multiplatform games are almost identical (excluding tiny graphical differences that mean nothing) means that its the developers. Sure, it would've helped if Sony made the PS3 hardware easier to develop for, but it doesn't give developers an excuse to be lazy.

UnrealLegend

It's both.

PS3 is a hard system to program for, as opposed to the 360.

However, experienced devs (I'm looking at you Bethesda) have had enough time to figure out the PS3 and should be able to work well with the platform. This, however, is not the case.

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.

It's still the PS3 that's hard to develop for , not that the devs still don't understand the hardware but it takes a lot more time to do get something working on it compared to the 360 , even with newer development tools that will not change much because of the design Sony choose .

If devs have enough time like some first party devs the games are maybe even better than possible on the 360 but since devs are time constraint they can't take 6 months more for every PS3 version and than this is the outcome .

Reason is that Sony is mainly a hardware company and MS a software company , Sony says here is some incredible strong and new hardware we made and now you devs go and make games for it , MS thinks about software implementation before the hardware is designed .

Same as last gen with PS2 and EE and probably next gen. if Sony wants to build further on the Cell .

[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]

The fact that the vast majority of multiplatform games are almost identical (excluding tiny graphical differences that mean nothing) means that its the developers. Sure, it would've helped if Sony made the PS3 hardware easier to develop for, but it doesn't give developers an excuse to be lazy.

delta3074

word we should be happy they gave us a broken game. Fact of the matter is many devs have shown us the difference in multiplat is small with a tiny sum showing other wise. End of the day the skyrum issue is on the devs cause heck im even hearing about some pc owners getting tec issues.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]

The fact that the vast majority of multiplatform games are almost identical (excluding tiny graphical differences that mean nothing) means that its the developers. Sure, it would've helped if Sony made the PS3 hardware easier to develop for, but it doesn't give developers an excuse to be lazy.

finalfantasy94

word we should be happy they gave us a broken game. Fact of the matter is many devs have shown us the difference in multiplat is small with a tiny sum showing other wise. End of the day the skyrum issue is on the devs cause heck im even hearing about some pc owners getting tec issues.

Unpractical hardware design. If given the time, PS3 can be equally capable, but i believe that in most cases devs dont have that extra dev time.

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

Developers, last generation there were several xbox games that looked just like PS2 games,with basically nothing add to them,developers will not do something that is not financially viable to them.

The difference in most of this games are basically minimal,unless you are taling Skyrim which is pretty easy to see the was the developers fault.

in bethesda's case it was downright decietful if you ask me and i have stood alongside Ps3 owners for days against this sort of crap, but everytime a multiplat underperforms on the ps3 it's because of Lazy developers,RDR runs in Sub-HD on the ps3, lazy developers, black ops did not run as well on Ps3, lazy developers apparently, Ps3 users accuse every third party developer of being lazy and it's just not the case, they cannot imagine for a minute that the Ps3 is partly responsible for the lack of framerate or lack of graphical fidelity, somehow it's always the developers fault and has nothing to do with the fact that the ps3 was deliberatly made hard to code for and has architecture that even carmack said you had to 'sweat bullets' to get the same kind of performance out of.delta3074

That doesn't make sense when there are PS3 games that look better than all those games,developers will not spend extra cash on putting the 2 versions on par,people need to know this,so basically the one with the ease of development will probably have the little better looking version.

Carmak is a PC developer who like the easy things in life,he has been a high critic of the PS3 hardware pretty much before the PS3 was even launch,he just doesn't like complicated hardware,and he has credit MS with having better game making tool on 360 that even on PC.

Its sonys fault period.Miketheman83

This. Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is a dumbass fanboy.

Devs. Most PS3 multi-plats are just 360 ports and of course they aren't the best as such. Can't really blame the hardware if the devs aren't willing to invest time into it.

nameless12345

How about accept some constructive criticism for Sony to have a batter/more dev friendly product next gen? You guys are always praising Sony, no matter what, and dont realise you are not helping your own cause in long term.

Silly design decsion from sony Devs are not to blame. Sony offered poor support at the start of the gen when compared with Microsoft.

[QUOTE="delta3074"] in bethesda's case it was downright decietful if you ask me and i have stood alongside Ps3 owners for days against this sort of crap, but everytime a multiplat underperforms on the ps3 it's because of Lazy developers,RDR runs in Sub-HD on the ps3, lazy developers, black ops did not run as well on Ps3, lazy developers apparently, Ps3 users accuse every third party developer of being lazy and it's just not the case, they cannot imagine for a minute that the Ps3 is partly responsible for the lack of framerate or lack of graphical fidelity, somehow it's always the developers fault and has nothing to do with the fact that the ps3 was deliberatly made hard to code for and has architecture that even carmack said you had to 'sweat bullets' to get the same kind of performance out of.tormentos

That doesn't make sense when there are PS3 games that look better than all those games,developers will not spend extra cash on putting the 2 versions on par,people need to know this,so basically the one with the ease of development will probably have the little better looking version.

Carmak is a PC developer who like the easy things in life,he has been a high critic of the PS3 hardware pretty much before the PS3 was even launch,he just doesn't like complicated hardware,and he has credit MS with having better game making tool on 360 that even on PC.

Definitely devs. They make the PC version first and since the 360 is just like a PC it's easy to port it over, but they KNOW the PS3 is a bit different, yet they try to port it over anyways knowing it's not going to be optimized correctly. If they put some more effort into PS3 optimization instead of just a direct port, then the customers wouldn't have to deal with the problems resulting from directly porting.

Definitely devs. They make the PC version first and since the 360 is just like a PC it's easy to port it over, but they KNOW the PS3 is a bit different, yet they try to port it over anyways knowing it's not going to be optimized correctly. If they put some more effort into PS3 optimization instead of just a direct port, then the customers wouldn't have to deal with the problems resulting from directly porting.

Messiahbolical-

Why should they put more effort and cost into bringing the PS3 version up to standard?.

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]

Definitely devs. They make the PC version first and since the 360 is just like a PC it's easy to port it over, but they KNOW the PS3 is a bit different, yet they try to port it over anyways knowing it's not going to be optimized correctly. If they put some more effort into PS3 optimization instead of just a direct port, then the customers wouldn't have to deal with the problems resulting from directly porting.

Snugenz

Why should they put more effort and cost into bringing the PS3 version up to standard?.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]

Definitely devs. They make the PC version first and since the 360 is just like a PC it's easy to port it over, but they KNOW the PS3 is a bit different, yet they try to port it over anyways knowing it's not going to be optimized correctly. If they put some more effort into PS3 optimization instead of just a direct port, then the customers wouldn't have to deal with the problems resulting from directly porting.

delta3074

Why should they put more effort and cost into bringing the PS3 version up to standard?.

That would be a pretty arrogant line of thinking lol

you cant answer that question unless you have experience with the platform.

but if the PS3 was AS easy to work with at the same time as the 360, both versions of every game would be the same. its only where the game is heavy on RAM, such as Skyrim, fallout, RDR, etc that you see the big differences, thats why its SONY's fault not the Developers. Sony said they don't want to make the PS3 easy to develop for, thats stupid isn't it really?

sts106mat

All PS3 and 360 games by now are ram limited.

The xbox 360 and PS3 have the same ammoun of Ram they just use it differently,the xbox 360 10 extra MB are a non factor since those are suppose to be for AA and not even for that are use in many games.

Games like Gears,Uncharted,Rage,Crysis use every single bite of ram the machine has to offer,they use it as much as Skyrim and RDR do,becasue you may not get the same open ness on Gears,but you get much more detail which does use the ram in the same way either way.

Did they say that.? I remember them always saying how toolz would be better for the PS3 unlike the PS2.

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]

but if the PS3 was AS easy to work with at the same time as the 360, both versions of every game would be the same. its only where the game is heavy on RAM, such as Skyrim, fallout, RDR, etc that you see the big differences, thats why its SONY's fault not the Developers. Sony said they don't want to make the PS3 easy to develop for, thats stupid isn't it really?

tormentos

All PS3 and 360 games by now are ram limited.

The xbox 360 and PS3 have the same ammoun of Ram they just use it differently,the xbox 360 10 extra MB are a non factor since those are suppose to be for AA and not even for that are use in many games.

Games like Gears,Uncharted,Rage,Crysis use every single bite of ram the machine has to offer,they use it as much as Skyrim and RDR do,becasue you may not get the same open ness on Gears,but you get much more detail which does use the ram in the same way either way.

Did they say that.? I remember them always saying how toolz would be better for the PS3 unlike the PS2.

I'd say its the devs. Other then the split RAM, the PS3 is equal to the 360 in power for the most part and has the advantage of the cell CPU and Blu Ray.

In general, whichever platform is the lead platform is going to look slightly better. Most games tend to have 360 as lead platform, but games like LA Noire with PS3 as lead will look better on PS3. Other games like Dragon Age look better, but its just a rarity since I believe the PC was lead platform, and I think the 360's architecture is closer to a PC's instead of more "out there" like the PS3's.

So its a mix, but mostly devs. If the devs want to make PS3 lead platform, then its going to look slightly, slightly better on PS3 every time (just like how 360 being lead make that version look slightly, slightly better) unless they put extra effort on the 360 version for some reason. Some ports also seem to be rather lazily done, but mostly not since the early days of PS3.

SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]

Definitely devs. They make the PC version first and since the 360 is just like a PC it's easy to port it over, but they KNOW the PS3 is a bit different, yet they try to port it over anyways knowing it's not going to be optimized correctly. If they put some more effort into PS3 optimization instead of just a direct port, then the customers wouldn't have to deal with the problems resulting from directly porting.

Snugenz

Why should they put more effort and cost into bringing the PS3 version up to standard?.

hmmm maybe not to screw the consumer. I think thats a good reason.

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]

but if the PS3 was AS easy to work with at the same time as the 360, both versions of every game would be the same. its only where the game is heavy on RAM, such as Skyrim, fallout, RDR, etc that you see the big differences, thats why its SONY's fault not the Developers. Sony said they don't want to make the PS3 easy to develop for, thats stupid isn't it really?

tormentos

All PS3 and 360 games by now are ram limited.

The xbox 360 and PS3 have the same ammoun of Ram they just use it differently,the xbox 360 10 extra MB are a non factor since those are suppose to be for AA and not even for that are use in many games.

Games like Gears,Uncharted,Rage,Crysis use every single bite of ram the machine has to offer,they use it as much as Skyrim and RDR do,becasue you may not get the same open ness on Gears,but you get much more detail which does use the ram in the same way either way.

Did they say that.? I remember them always saying how toolz would be better for the PS3 unlike the PS2.

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.

garland51

Carmak is a PC developer who like the easy things in life,he has been a high critic of the PS3 hardware pretty much before the PS3 was even launch,he just doesn't like complicated hardware,and he has credit MS with having better game making tool on 360 that even on PC.

tormentos

"The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360." - Shippy source info

IBM has been out of the VGA (graphics processor) business for a lone time.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]

Definitely devs. They make the PC version first and since the 360 is just like a PC it's easy to port it over, but they KNOW the PS3 is a bit different, yet they try to port it over anyways knowing it's not going to be optimized correctly. If they put some more effort into PS3 optimization instead of just a direct port, then the customers wouldn't have to deal with the problems resulting from directly porting.

finalfantasy94

Why should they put more effort and cost into bringing the PS3 version up to standard?.

hmmm maybe not to screw the consumer. I think thats a good reason.

it's hardly the developers fault if they don't want to put extra finances towards a game that sells for the same amount, thats good business practice, minimise expense, maximise return, you could say it was SONY's fault for making there console so much more expensive to develope on, why would any company spend out more money for less return on there investment, especially when the end result is close enough in most cases anyway, third party developers need to make money jsut like every other comapny, and it's a well know fact that MS developement tools are a step above SONY dev tools, that where MS strength's is, SONY are hardware makers and make better hardware, MS are software makers and make better software, that's why the 360 has an extra 18MB of RAM for developers to work with because the 360 has a much lower OS footprint,as for your comments about carmack being critical of the Ps3 , it was him who stated the Ps3 was marginall more powerful than the 360 but it was too much extra effort and cost to reach that peak performance.

delta3074

Both SPUs and RSX are half baked GPUs.

Both NVIDIA's and AMD'sDX10/DX11 array processors doesn't follow PS3's array processor setup.

[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. 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.

Animal-Mother

[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. 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.

Animal-Mother

[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. 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.

Animal-Mother

the kicker is bethesda didnt port it 4j did, and those are the guys doing the MC port for 360 right now :D

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

Why should they put more effort and cost into bringing the PS3 version up to standard?.

delta3074

hmmm maybe not to screw the consumer. I think thats a good reason.

yea. Its better then asking consumers to bend over. End of the day if you release a low quality product its the dev who looks bad not said system its releasing on. No matter what.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

it's hardly the developers fault if they don't want to put extra finances towards a game that sells for the same amount, thats good business practice, minimise expense, maximise return, you could say it was SONY's fault for making there console so much more expensive to develope on, why would any company spend out more money for less return on there investment, especially when the end result is close enough in most cases anyway, third party developers need to make money jsut like every other comapny, and it's a well know fact that MS developement tools are a step above SONY dev tools, that where MS strength's is, SONY are hardware makers and make better hardware, MS are software makers and make better software, that's why the 360 has an extra 18MB of RAM for developers to work with because the 360 has a much lower OS footprint,as for your comments about carmack being critical of the Ps3 , it was him who stated the Ps3 was marginall more powerful than the 360 but it was too much extra effort and cost to reach that peak performance.

ronvalencia

Both SPUs and RSX are half baked GPUs.

Both NVIDIA's and AMD'sDX10/DX11 array processors doesn't follow PS3's array processor setup.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][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. 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.

razgriz_101

the kicker is bethesda didnt port it 4j did, and those are the guys doing the MC port for 360 right now :D