xbox 360

[Bahd Zoolander]

Knew the rest on 360/PS3... but i thought that CoD4 was a wakeup call to the industry that the only thing stopping people from doing it properly is themselves. Granted not all developers want to put the resources into it, but that is their choice not a failure of the hardware.

It *IS* a failure of the hardware. If the PS3 was the only game in town then you could say that the hardware needed to be so complex to do the things it does. However, it is not the only game in town. The 360 does roughly the same thing while being cheaper to buy and much easier to develop for. There's no good reason that they had to make the PS3 so hard to develop for. There's also no reason they had to make the PS2 so hard to develop for. You can say that the power is there and it only needs a dedicated developer to unlock it, but in the end it's Sony's fault for making something that is difficult to develop on that leads to the PS3 games being not as good as the same 360 game.

It's not just the hardware either, the development environment for the PS3 is miles behind the environment for the 360. Sony has never had a reputation for providing development tools that were more than adequate while Microsoft has always provided an excellent environment. It makes a huge difference.

If it was your money funding the development would you rather pay 10 guys for 18 months to make a 360 game that runs at 60 fps and has a potential market of 11 million consoles, or 15 guys for 2 years to make a PS3 game that runs at 60fps and has a potential market of < 6 million? It doesn't make financial sense to spend more to sell less.

[Rsak]

You can say that the power is there and it only needs a dedicated developer to unlock it, but in the end it's Sony's fault for making something that is difficult to develop on that leads to the PS3 games being not as good as the same 360 game.

Fault is the improper word to use. It was Sony's choice. There are numerous reasons they made the decisions they did and time will still tell whether they were mistakes or not.

PS3 games are just as good as 360 games and we are starting to see that with R&C:ToD, Uncharted,Resistance:Fall of Mn, and even Heavenly Sword. The simple fact of the matter is that 360 released earlier and they have the established base of XboxLive users. And time will tell what the limits of the hardware is and how far you can go with it. I would not be surprised if Microsoft pushes the next console out due to hardware limitations on the 360 that haven't been hit on PS3. Honestly you can't judge the potential success or failure of such a position unless we know the market at the time and how long since the last hardware release.

I will say that PS3 removing the backwards compatibility seems like a mistake to me. That is a major selling point imo.

[Bahd Zoolander]

What I was pointing out was the fact that there are several games with both a 360 and PS3 SKU where the PS3 version is inferior either in frame rate or overall visual quality. You pointed out several PS3 exclusives. Sure, they may be great, but there's no basis for comparison.

The specs for each machine are not secret. There is nothing amazing waiting for someone to discover it hiding in the PS3. It has an advantage with the Blu-Ray drive, but there's nothing, other than increased cost, stopping a 360 game from shipping on multiple DVDs.

Sure, people will get better at making PS3 games as time goes on, but by then it may be too late. They aren't selling consoles fast enough, and their attach rate is poor compared to the 360 and the Wii. They really need an exclusive must have game, like Halo 3 or Super Mario Galaxy to push the console sales. There are a couple of games I'd like to play, but none so far that have made my buy the console.

[Ddrak]

PS3 games are just as good as 360 games

They *can* be as good, or even better, but it costs more in time and manpower to make them that way. In short, you have to invest a bunch more to get the same result on the PS3. That is directly the fault of Sony's design decisions on the hardware, where they literally assumed they could build any old crap they wanted and the devs would fall over themselves to figure out how to build games. It worked for the PS2 where there was a clear difference in the hardware capabilities, but the X360 is easily comparable in power to the PS3 and a more balanced system to boot so Sony's gamble isn't paying too well this time around.

And time will tell what the limits of the hardware is and how far you can go with it. I would not be surprised if Microsoft pushes the next console out due to hardware limitations on the 360 that haven't been hit on PS3.

There's been other consoles out that time never showed the limits of (Dreamcast, for example). The true limits of the X360 vs the PS3 are very similar, with only really the DVD vs Blu-Ray format to give the PS3 a long term boost. If MS pushes their next-gen console out before Sony then that really will be difficult for Sony to get the userbase back without a severe hardware and developer buy-in on a PS4. Sony *needs* to push a PS4 out as soon as possible to preempt MS's next-gen console and so get the and marketshare back on their side. I honestly don't see the PS3 truly outlasting the X360 or surpassing it in game ability, and given the X360 is cheaper and already has a much larger installed base that's pretty damaging for Sony's future. They need a new console.

I don't get the removal of the PS2 bits either.

Dd

[Bahd Zoolander]

I don't get the removal of the PS2 bits either.

It's "strategy"... http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i ... tory=16163

[Ddrak]

I don't get the removal of the PS2 bits either.

It's "strategy"... http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i ... tory=16163

It's retarded. The extra component cost was maybe $10-$20, and they are forcing people to decide between a PS3 and X360 with *no* incentive to stay with the PS platform. Hell, the fact the X360 had no hardware backward compatibility was one of the "cons" SoE was pumping about it for a long time prior to the PS3 launch.

Dd

[Rsak]

Sure, people will get better at making PS3 games as time goes on, but by then it may be too late.

I agree it might be too late by then, but it is still an unknown. MGS4 and Kill Zone 2 will the exclusives on the horizon that are likely to push PS3 sales. MGS4 while out after Halo3 will still have released quicker after launch then Halo 3 did (assuming it keeps a march release).

I am just not convinced that the PS3 capabilities are the same as the Xbox 360, but I am willing to accept that the capabilities at the end of the console generation will be equal.

Honestly the game I am looking forward too is the sequel to Black which is still one of the best shooters on a console in my opinion.

[Bahd Zoolander]

I am just not convinced that the PS3 capabilities are the same as the Xbox 360, but I am willing to accept that the capabilities at the end of the console generation will be equal.

Why are you not convinced? Do you have some evidence? The GPU in each machine is roughly equivalent. It's arguable which machine has more computing power. For general processing tasks the 360 wins easily, but the PS3 has some amazing power for very specialized tasks. This specialization is what makes the PS3 harder to develop for.

Sony is definitely feeling the heat now. They just cut their dev kit price by almost 50% and it still costs slightly more than the 360 dev kit. They're also providing ProDG with it and switching to the SN compiler as the standard in their new SDKs. It's a step in the right direction for them, cause overpriced dev kits and crappy tools really don't make game developers happy.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Halo 3 really isn't anything big, though.. I've beat the game, played it online and pretty much got tired of it. I hear theres a map pack coming out, but its gonna cost 800 M$ points ($10)... frankly, Halo 3 could've done a lot more to be a good game... as it is now its good, but not something that amazes me. (I.E. the replay value is pretty much jack shit)

[Fallakin Kuvari]

/fail

[Ddrak]

Whether you like Halo 3 or not, the game sold a metric fuckton of X360s.

Dd

[Rsak]

Halo 3 deserves alot of credit, but it is interesting that they are giving away the game now if you buy a 360 by the end of the year.

It was a very well done graphic engine (I don't think its the best though), theater mode, and solid multiplayer/forge. The single player campaign was weak and short compared to the previous incarnations. Honestly the problem with Halo series is their 5 minutes of fun mentality when it comes to Single Player action. This works very well for multiplayer, but single player campaigns need something more then 5 minutes of fun to bring it all together.

[Finglefinn]

Halo 1 was perhaps the best console game I've ever played. That and Tiger Woods 2004 (I think that was the year.) Everything about Halo 1 was awesome.

[Bahd Zoolander]

Halo 3's first day sales were $170m. Whether it is fun or pretty is completely irrelevant as far as commercial success goes. Most games never make back their development costs and Halo 3 did it in one day.

Never before have so many bean counters spooged in their pants simultaneously.

[Klast Brell]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvZnTFpi ... re=related