Reasons for PS3 inferiormultiplats: Devs or hardware?

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-

Unlike Swiftshader, PS3 still the uses RSX's shaders and fix function units.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

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

finalfantasy94

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="AtariKidX"]Bethesda did not port oblivion on the PS3........4J Studios port the game on the PS3.Now why the oblivion is perfect and better on the PS3 and Skyrim it is not.....that is a mystery that only bethesda can answer this.....lolsts106mat

NO PS3 port not perfect, even came with a unique un-curable (i think) bug on the vampire quest. the 360 and PC versions were patched not long after the PS3 version was released and load times - draw distance improved and brought up to the same standard as the PS3 version (which had the patch already hence why it looked better). this information is well known. Its also well known that 4J studios had a year to work on the PS3 port.

cause 4J actually done a decent less buggy port and optimized it better xD

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[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.

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="delta3074"][QUOTE="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.

ronvalencia

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]so they should screw themselves from a business point of view instead of releasing a game which is inferior, but only marginally inferior most of the time, they should spend more money on one version yet still sell it for the same price as the other versions and minimise there return on the investment, they should increase there costs vs return when most developers are struggling, just to keep us the consumer happy, the developers should cover the cost of SONY making there machine more expensive and time consuming to develope on,LOLdelta3074

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.

so the consumer get screwed cause the dev didint make sure the differences were minimal at best on the platforms that mirror each other when it was being released.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

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.

finalfantasy94

so the consumer get screwed cause the dev didint make sure the differences were minimal at best on the platforms that mirror each other when it was being released.

Hardware design.. Fact :P

Now, perhaps if PS3 fans wouldn't be apposed to say spending an extra 25 bucks of so for their multi's,... devs could no doubt do better mutli's but until then, I don't expect devs to put 25% more time into the PS3 version and sell at the same price as PC/360 versions. :o

Just sayin. :P

Hardware design.. Fact :P

Now, perhaps if PS3 fans wouldn't be apposed to say spending an extra 25 bucks of so for their multi's,... devs could no doubt do better mutli's but until then, I don't expect devs to put 25% more time into the PS3 version and sell at the same price as PC/360 versions. :o

Just sayin. :P

SecretPolice

The reason I blame it on the developers is because it's their CHOICE to make games on the PS3, knowing that it's harder to develop for. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And some developers CAN'T take the heat, yet they CHOSE to "stay in the kitchen" only to release messy ports that run like crap. If Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac, Quantic Dreams, Konami, Sucker Punch, Sony Santa Monica, etc etc etc etc etc can make games that look good and run great on the PS3, then there's no excuse for any other developer not being able to. It's definitely the Devs, not the hardware. This is a fact.Messiahbolical-

[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

[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.

delta3074

Ahhh well my folly on the oblivion thing. But no it doesn't because there are games out there that prove that. Mainly EA games. Dead Space 1 & 2 Mirrors Edge Battlefield Batman Devil May Cry I could go on with a bunch of multiplats. It really is the devs I believe. Because these games show us that you can release a game thats fantastic and not have an issue.

Your post is in like two parts don't agree with italics, agree with bold.

But look at fallout 3, not really any issues on the PS3. It goes to show it's really bethesda.

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

Holy crap!!!! Finally a level 1 poster with a good legitimate post!!!....Although this specific topic has been talked about on here to death....

Devs like Bethesda are just porting stuff from 360, and that results in inferior multiplats.

When devs code games specifically for the PS3, they are typically at least equal if not superior.

Devs like Bethesda are just porting stuff from 360, and that results in inferior multiplats.

When devs code games specifically for the PS3, they are typically at least equal if not superior.

LazySloth718

[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]

Devs like Bethesda are just porting stuff from 360, and that results in inferior multiplats.

When devs code games specifically for the PS3, they are typically at least equal if not superior.

delta3074

Botch job is botch job on any system.

I am firmly convinced that Sony HQ has no form of quality control, does not play games before they are allowed to be released to the public, and just plain don't care.

[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]

Devs like Bethesda are just porting stuff from 360, and that results in inferior multiplats.

When devs code games specifically for the PS3, they are typically at least equal if not superior.

delta3074

It's the developers. The system developers build the game on will always have, in some way, a slight edge.

it's both, sony was more interested in bluray and the cell which were both terrible for games but great for profit and devs for not putting in the extra work ps3 ports needed to have to be as good as the 360 versions.

i still can't blame the devs as much though. who want to put a ton of extra effort into the version which won't sell as well.

it is a business after all and having dozens of people work hundreds or thousands of extra hours is just not feasable when you have to consider the bottom line.

if sony is allowed to put in bluray and the cell to make extra money yet harm the actual games then devs are allowed to put profit first also.

if sony gets a pass then it seems only fair to give the devs the same pass.

1. Sony didn't release dev tools that taught third party developers how to access the power in the hardware; so they had to discover it themselves.

Microsoft did.

2. Sony utilized extremely complex processor architecture that took a while to unlock fully; and never fulfilled it's theoretical maximum.

Microsoft didn't.

3. Many third parties didn't like the previous two things, and either ignored the PS3, or were forced by their publisher to put out a PS3 version as well.

Very few multiplatform TP's actually took the PS3 seriously enough (or given enough motivation by the publisher) to make their games work on the PS3 on par with the 360, or better (a rare thing indeed).foxhound_fox

Totally this. This is exactly what posters like myself & delta were saying earlier. It's Sony's fault for making the PS3 hardware so compilicated for 3rd party developers. They made it a LOT worse for them than for the PS2. As a matter of fact, 3rd party developers were ready to hop onto the Gamecube platform & to start developing their titles exclusively for it, especially when it was way easier to develop their games on it than the PS2. The only reason why most of them even put up with the development of their games onto the PS2 is because of their high install base. That's it.

This gen, however, they thought they could get away with it again & thought that a lot of developers would make games for PS3 first, then port onto 360, but it didn't exactly work like they planned.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

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.

PAL360

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.

It's not Sony's fault if some 3rd parties can't handle the hardware. Yea, they could have made it more easy to develop for but then it's the devs who decide if they'll code for it or not. And please, do show me where I was praising Sony :P

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]1. Sony didn't release dev tools that taught third party developers how to access the power in the hardware; so they had to discover it themselves.

Microsoft did.

2. Sony utilized extremely complex processor architecture that took a while to unlock fully; and never fulfilled it's theoretical maximum.

Microsoft didn't.

3. Many third parties didn't like the previous two things, and either ignored the PS3, or were forced by their publisher to put out a PS3 version as well.

Very few multiplatform TP's actually took the PS3 seriously enough (or given enough motivation by the publisher) to make their games work on the PS3 on par with the 360, or better (a rare thing indeed).garland51

Totally this. This is exactly what posters like myself & delta were saying earlier. It's Sony's fault for making the PS3 hardware so compilicated for 3rd party developers. They made it a LOT worse for them than for the PS2. As a matter of fact, 3rd party developers were ready to hop onto the Gamecube platform & to start developing their titles exclusively for it, especially when it was way easier to develop their games on it than the PS2. The only reason why most of them even put up with the development of their games onto the PS2 is because of their high install base. That's it.

This gen, however, they thought they could get away with it again & thought that a lot of developers would make games for PS3 first, then port onto 360, but it didn't exactly work like they planned.

[QUOTE="Pro-Gear-Spec"][QUOTE="DrHousesCane"] This is the internet, I can't actually say something to your face. You have a disturbing obsession with Inferior PS3 Multiplats. And Alt Account creating.super600

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.

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.

[QUOTE="Pro-Gear-Spec"]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?Adamantium4k2

Holy crap!!!! Finally a level 1 poster with a good legitimate post!!!....Although this specific topic has been talked about on here to death....

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.

themajormayor

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.

themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.

delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.

themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="delta3074"]it's not much more powerful at all, like carmack stated, it's marginally more powerful, you understand what the word marginal means right? if it was so much more powerful then Ps3 exclusives would be light years ahead of xbox 360 exclusives and they are not and naughty dog themselves said there wasn't much left in the Ps3 which is why the jump from UC2 to UC3 was minor compared to the jump from UC1 to UC2, you are bringing up an argument that was settled a very long time ago mate.delta3074

[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"]The reason I blame it on the developers is because it's their CHOICE to make games on the PS3, knowing that it's harder to develop for. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And some developers CAN'T take the heat, yet they CHOSE to "stay in the kitchen" only to release messy ports that run like crap. If Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac, Quantic Dreams, Konami, Sucker Punch, Sony Santa Monica, etc etc etc etc etc can make games that look good and run great on the PS3, then there's no excuse for any other developer not being able to. It's definitely the Devs, not the hardware. This is a fact.delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.

themajormayor

I wouldn't really say that PS3 has "inferior multiplats", I mean there is hardly a difference between them (sorry xbox fanboys but it's true, get over it),I know that there are differences in how the systems handle game engines and whatnot, but it (almost) always looks the same across both games. And you have to consider that not many devs have a problem withthe PS3 and some even prefer it, so no I wouldn't say it's the PS3.

As in the caseof Skyrim on PS3, it seems to vary from person to person. I am about 50 hours in and still no performance issues so far, and I hope it stays that way. But some people are having issues and I feel bad for them,I'm sure Bethesda willfix it though.I do think that alot of people calling it "unplayble" on here are just insecure 360 fanboys who are over exxageratting it, some people are legit but alot of others arn't and I can tell. Also a buddy of mine has it on xbox and he is having some issues with his, so don't go around pretend it's perfect and bash the PS3. But like I said it varies from person to person, some have issues others do not.

[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]

Devs like Bethesda are just porting stuff from 360, and that results in inferior multiplats.

When devs code games specifically for the PS3, they are typically at least equal if not superior.

delta3074

We aren't developers, so we can't really know for sure.

But I'd say that it's 65% the developers and 35% the hardware.

It's a bit of both, obviously. It's Sony's fault for designing a difficult-to-work-with architecture. But at the point that a game developer commits to having their game on PS3, it is unacceptable to screw over customers by giving them an unplayable product. There may be some gray zone for slight inferiority (I think Madden's graphics on PS3 are noticeably worse than 360, and have been for this whole generation, but without much impact on gameplay), but the Skyrim-type problems we're seeing are really bad.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="LazySloth718"]

Devs like Bethesda are just porting stuff from 360, and that results in inferior multiplats.

When devs code games specifically for the PS3, they are typically at least equal if not superior.

actionjunkie10

I try to avoid these arguments because they bring out the stupid fanboy in people, but let's be honest here. Does it really matter if one is "better" than the other? I mean if one is "better" I can never tell lol, it's so similar that it's silly to argue about. I haven't played all the games taht Delta mentioned but from the ones that I did (like RDR) it looked just like the xbox version, if there wasa difference I couldn't tell. If it was in so called "sub HD" I still didn't give a **** because it wasn't noticible, really it wasn't.

But with that I'm off because I don't like to stick around in these threads, all it turns into is just blind system haters posting obviously fake pictures and being douchbags to eachother, it's like people are acting like damn kids lol. I buy all my multiplats on PS3 and that's what makes them "superior" than the 360 multiplats, because it's the system I play it on.

Also Digital Foundry and lens of truth are damn jokes and only exist for desperate xbox fanboys, everyone else knows this.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="delta3074"]it's not much more powerful at all, like carmack stated, it's marginally more powerful, you understand what the word marginal means right? if it was so much more powerful then Ps3 exclusives would be light years ahead of xbox 360 exclusives and they are not and naughty dog themselves said there wasn't much left in the Ps3 which is why the jump from UC2 to UC3 was minor compared to the jump from UC1 to UC2, you are bringing up an argument that was settled a very long time ago mate.delta3074

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

All multi-plats look better on your mom. In bed.

Clearly devs since there ARE multiplatform games that look good on both platforms. And you can look at games like Demon's Souls which is fairly open world and that runs great (subtle frame-rate issues notwithstanding)

Some devs cater specifically to the 360 because its architecture is similar to the PC, a platform that developers have had experience with for decades, so sadly they optimize the 360 and PC versions but merely strive for the best they can do with the PS3. If you need anymore of an indication of this Unreal Engine 3 is specifically stated as being optimized for performance on 360 and PC...

There isn't a problem anymore. This year half has been better on PS3 and half on 360(mostly crap games like transformers). The only problem is that 100% should be better on PS3 considering how much more powerful console it is.