Volition: We struggled with PS3 Red Faction

OXM UK reports that Volition Inc needed to draft in help from Sony to get Red Faction: Guerilla up to speed with the Xbox 360 version.

Associate Producer Sean Kennedy tells OXM UK that the problem was that the PlayStation3 has less memory to work with than the Xbox 360, which is why the extra help from Sony was needed.

The story is too old to be commented.
Hellsvacancy3217d ago

Im not a game programmer or anythin like that but wot i dont get is how come the Ps3 has such great lookin titles like Uncharted ,Mgs4, killzone 2 etc so y cant other devs be able to to the same?

Are they lazy

Can sumbody please explain

BIoodmask3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

I'm sure that a neutral third party would say things in an interview just to make you angry. One would think they know a little bit more about programming for all the different consoles than you and most of the people on this website.

Most threads that I read the comments on usually have at least one person calling developers lazy. It is almost expected now. Just because you think certain games look appealing has nothing to do with a consoles capabilities. That is solely your opinion.

thor3217d ago

It's not that the devs are "lazy" per-se - they've just designed their engine with a lot of memory useage. Memory is one of the key things that can speed up performance of a PC, everyone knows this. Yet the PS3 is lacking in memory compared to the 360 (I think the OS takes up more & one of the GPU/CPU doesn't have access to all the memory).

The GPU in the PS3 is comparable in speed to the 360's GPU.
The Cell in the PS3 beats out the 360's CPU by a long way, but it doesn't handle multitasking well - you need to handle the sending of code fragments and shuffling different processes around YOURSELF instead of the processor just interlacing the threads.
The blu-ray drive in the PS3 is slightly slower than the top speed of a DVD-9 but it doesn't make much difference.

The memory in the PS3 is inadequate and THIS is the reason devs have problems. This is the main reason for problems with PS3 versions of games, especially open world games like Fallout 3 and now this. It's difficult to reduce memory consumption and then you end up needing to compress your data and decompress it on-the-fly using the SPUs - but then you need something to organise the processes that run on the SPUs and it will take a LOT of work.

The reason that a lot of games have a mandatory install on PS3 is to speed up the loading/streaming of data - it's not that the blu-ray drive is slow it's that more data needs to be streamed in more rapidly because there's not enough space in the memory.

thereapersson3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

The PS3 uses XDR ram, while the 360 uses a more standard RAM type that we are used to seeing in everyday PC's (GDDR3).

(taken from Wikipedia)

XDR DRAM or extreme data rate dynamic random access memory is a high-performance RAM interface and successor to the Rambus RDRAM it is based on, competing with the rival DDR2 SDRAM and GDDR4 technology. XDR was designed to be effective in small, high-bandwidth consumer systems, high-performance memory applications, and high-end GPUs. It eliminates the unusually high latency problems that plagued early forms of RDRAM. Also, the XDR DRAM have heavy emphasis on per pin bandwidth, which can benefit further cost control on PCB production. This is because fewer lanes are needed for the same amount of bandwidth. Rambus owns the rights to the technology. XDR is used by Sony in the PlayStation 3 console.[1]


If developers would start optimizing games for the high-performance architecture of the PS3 (i.e. making games lead platform on the PS3), we would see less of these problems. Hell, EA of all companies have done it (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge), so what is the problem here?

Robearboy3217d ago

I dont think the devs are lazy, they are simply finding the architecture of the cell difficult to understand, a bit like someone who has worked with ferarri's for 30 years and are then given a Porche to fix up, they will be teething troubles

thor3217d ago


The XDR should have a higher speed than the DDR in the 360. I read somewhere that the PS3's OS takes a load more RAM than the 360's OS. Furthermore, the 360 has 512MB of shared RAM that can be accessed by both the CPU and GPU whereas the Cell can only access 256MB of XDR - and about 64MB of that is taken up by the OS. You can see where the problems arise.

Software_Lover3217d ago

Everyone of those games you mentioned are exclusive and the dev time, especially KZ2, even MGS4, was a long process. Im sure they had more resources on hand than a 3rd party dev. But now that they have their problem fixed, Im sure when they make another game for the ps3 it wont be that much of a problem if any.

jtucker783217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

RE: 1.2

How come you don't have more bubbles thor?
Intelligently and articulately written with no biased opinions.

Bubs up.

Foolsjoker3217d ago

The PS3 while yes uses different ram, it is actually the problem of multi-threading. The XBOX has 1 lump sum of memory to use, the PS3 has multiple smaller bits. So if you create your game just throwing everything into RAM your going to have issues with conversion, as you are not allocating memory you are just dumping. So converting it to a PS3 is a pain as you need to get multiple threads to be organized to amount to the total of the XBOX. While this seems like it is weaker, it is actually smarter as the strain of slowdowns and ability to handle more processes unobstructed becomes of great value.

Basically, the Dev's just didn't plan out their coding or they were lazy and didn't bother to read the "how to code for PS3 book"...hahaha

Agent VX3217d ago

OMG!!! Here we go again... The PS3 is not the hardware super weight that Sony touted about. It is a fixed piece of hardware that will never get stronger, it horsepower is locked. The only thing they can improve on is how it is programmed.

First of all, the Bluray and Cell are expensive pieces of hardware solely due to the fact that they aren't mainstream mass produced items and not from them being some super duper electronic device. So in order for Sony able to keep the PS3 in the realm of mainstream consumer price index, they had to cut certain items or go with less expensive pieces of hardware. This was done by given the PS3 a older less performing video card and a less effective memory architecture. The decision to go with a cheaper less effective videocard and memory architecture is the sole reason why the PS3 struggles with games the 360 handles with ease in some cases.

Don't let fanboys fool you, most developers that aren't in bed with Sony, all say the same thing, the PS3 has significant performance issue with video rendering and memory related issues, never mind the slow read speeds of Bluray which is why you have so many GB's installs on the PS3.

Sony has had a strong history on overstating the performance of their gaming consoles and failing to deliver. The PS3 has kept this tradition strong, and developers are all saying the same thing. Also, any game that is out on the PS3 can easily be ran by the 360, so don't let the fanboys fools you with their usual Uncharted, MGS 4 and Rachet and Clank lies, these titles can be easily ran by the 360 and arne't graphically masterpieces like they say.

To clarify, the PS3 and 360 when you take in account all their strengths and weaknesses perform very similar. It really comes down to what games you like more. An up to date PC always smokes consoles!!!

spandexxking3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

Volition manged fine on the Ps3 version of Saints Row 2.
EDIT: so volition didnt make saints row 2 for ps3 my bad/sarcasm

3217d ago
hay3217d ago

It's understandable that when lead platform is PC/Xbox360 devs will have difficulties programming for PS3 cause of architectural differences.

thereapersson3217d ago

Wasn't the PS2 a hard system to develop for back in the day? Back when there was no XBOX, and it was just the PS2, I remember how good the first Red Faction was. Volition didn't seem to have any trouble developing for a "new and complicated" system like the Emotion Engine was.

My how times have changed!

tordavis3217d ago

"Im not a game programmer or anythin..."

Stopped reading right there!


I didn't want to get in this flame bait but all the games like MGS4,KZ2,UC,and GT5 were all funded by sony so those game gonna look better than most,developing and getting good results from PS3 want hurt big company's like EA but smaller company's it will,the PS3 was sony way to stay ahead of the 3rd party games like nintendo and it back fire on them because they're games will never sell like nintendo,so quit blaming the dev unless u are funding the cost to develop for this difficult machine. love PS3 forever best console ever hope that get me some bubbles hey im with the majority

Darkseider3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

The answer to this? LAZY DEVS.


If they designed their engine to use a lot of memory, time for a redesign. Write elegant code that uses a small footprint instead of hacked crap that kinda works but is bloated to no end. There is no excuse for that other than laziness plain and simple.

@Agent VX

The hardware in the PS3 is indeed superior from a processor and memory standpoint. The problem is devs code for the greatest common denominator on a console, XBox 360, which is essentially a x86 pinned PC under the hood. They use sloppy coding just as they would on a standard x86 game PC to get the job done. Unfortunately that is not the CORRECT way to code anything.


Sitting on a couch, eh? Here is one of the examples I use on my resume.

I know code. I also know when devs are lazy and let me assure you. This is a prime example of LAZY devs.

This is just a prime example of developers not willing to RTFM. It is a shame when they go out and say they are pushing limits of the PS3/XBox 360 when there are examples of much better games on both. They created the engine and the game for a PC w/ gobs of memory. In doing so coded it like absolute crap and then tried shoving their 5 lbs. of sh*t into a 3 pound bag. It just doesn't work like that hence, LAZY DEVS.

gameraxis3217d ago

just cause U can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done...
well i know, the ps3 sucks... whatever I'm not here to fan flames, but clearly it got fixed when the sony guy came in... and sometimes when a developer says "were pushing these systems to the max" its just the max that they know how to push it, and not an accurate measurement of the system...

granted, its harder, we all get it, but don't hint that its impossible


prowiew3217d ago

to hellsvacancy:

Thats because all those games you mention probably got help from sony.
Theyre first party.

SuperM3217d ago

Have you ever played GT5 prolouge? ever seen it in action? No? thought so... The only game i have on pc that is comparable to GT5 in graphics is Crysis. Nothing on the 360 can compete with it, period.

Oh and you are absolutely right about one point. The ps3 is a fixed piece of hardware that is not going to improve. Only developers can improve. The same can ofcourse be said about the 360. The only difference is that on the 360 developers are saying they are starting to push the hardware to the limit. On the ps3 developers are saying they are still only using a small part of the potential. Example being Naughty dog who said they only use about a third of the ps3's power in Uncharted which is one of the best looking console games on the market. Im not going to argue about uncharted looking better then all 360 games because i know how fanboys will respond to that, but atleast i can say there is nothing on 360 that is graphically superior to uncharted. Again if thats only a third of what the ps3 can do its no question whos going to have the best looking games in the future.

mandrake3217d ago

First, let's clear up some of the FUD here before it spreads and gains a life of its own.

A basic fact that any seasoned PC Gamer will tell you is that the speed of the RAM is not as important as the total amount of RAM. Check out the test results here:

For those of you who are too lazy to read, the bottom line is: it is better to have more RAM than faster RAM (if you can't have both). This axiom should be true up to 4 gigabytes.

Second, a more personal note. I read a lot of you kids calling devs "lazy" or "ignorant" and I used to get a huge kick out of emailing quotes from here to the code gnomes downstairs at work. It was funny at first but it's really old now. So take my word for it: you jokers have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about what you are talking about. The sad thing is, since this whole console war began, you have had more than enough time to educate yourselves so that you could discuss programming issues more intelligently, but you obviously didn't seize the opportunity. We are already tired of laughing at you, yet you are still as dumb as the day this whole thing started. If anybody has shown themselves to be lazy or ignorant, it's you people. Our devs are some of the most hardworking people I've ever met, and today, Friday, I have the unenviable task of telling a good number of them, one by one, that they are being let go. I'm sick to my stomach to have to do this then come here and read your brainfarts, but unfortunately, that too is part of my job.

Since I'm here already, let's try to clear awat some more crap. The lower memory cap on the PS3 is not the insurmountable bottleneck that some 360 fanboys would have you believe, but the workaround is an absolute b!tch to implement if you are starting from code that was originally written for the 360. And, of course, it is easier to "optimize" (whatever that means) on a system with more RAM than one with less, irrespective of how supposedly freakin fast the cpu is. Which brings up a second point. I can't speak for the other houses, but this whole business about "it's easier to lead on the PS3 then port to the 360 than the other way around" is pure, absolute bunk. "Porting" (if you even understand what that word means) is equally difficult in either direction. Work on the 360 version does tend to get done much more quickly, but I swear, it's not because it is esier to "port" to. Whether we do the 360 version first or last, it always goes gold in less time and with less kicking and screaming than the PS3 version. Make of that what you will.

So there. Have a nice day. Because I sure as hell won't.

Man_of_the_year3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

Well not every developer can take 5+ years to develope a game - and GT5 is only only on 1 console as well so all efforts can be focused on the one console....

your argument is reaching

SuperM3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

Did uncharted take 5 years to develop? nope, neither did GT5 prologue. The only reason GT5 takes long time to develop is all the content that is put into the game. And also that polyphony digital has been involved with other things outside the game while developing. For example designing the user interface of the dashboard on the Nissan GTR.

I think Insomniac is the definitive proof that developing on ps3 doesnt have to be time consuming. 1 game each year for the ps3 + a smaller psn ratchet game. There will always be some games that take longer to make, nomather what system. Need i mention Alan Wake, or perhaps even Too Human?

solidt123217d ago

Neither the PS3 or 360's ram technology is inferior, just different. The 360's ram design is based on technology that is widely known and the PS3's technology is based on newer architecture. They both work just fine they are just alot different from each other so devs need to know two different architectures well to make one good game now and that is what they are complaining about. If I was a developer I would be excited to learn something new but idunno so people just look at it as a job and a pay check.

Pain3217d ago

didn't they get the memo?

vidoardes3217d ago

Wow Mandrake, I have to congratulate you. You really know how to sound like you know what your talking about, when you quite clearly dont have a single first f***ing clue.

Designing a multi-platform title to work on one system then trying to force that to work on another system is lazy, it is sloppy, but it is cheap (and produces crappy results unless it is poured over for a long time, liek Bioshock or Oblivion). You have to develop the code with all systems in mind or you will always produce crap, because you wanna rush out a port (which is what happens 99% of the time in the games industry).

What does always prove true is that games that start on the PS3 and get ported out produce much better quality than the other way around. Games that are developed concurrently (i.e Burout Paradise) are equally as great on both systems.

The RAM in PS3 is niether inferior nor supirior, just differant, and it would help if 12 year old boys liek yourself would stop pretending like they know differant and telling everyone so

3217d ago
The Lazy One3217d ago

I like how you called him out, then completely agreed with him.

He never said it was worse, he said it was harder to work with. He actually made a point of saying it wasn't worse.

power of Green 3217d ago

The devs that are making or made those games you mentioned are talented, what you said doesn't mean those devs could not make a better product on the 360(if there were 360 versions of those titles).

I bet the 360 version will be better despite what they say.(PS3 is inferior)

Ju3217d ago (Edited 3217d ago )

@LostProphet. Give the man a rest. If what he says is true, he'll have a nightmare day today. And believe me, I know. Been there, done that.

But let me tell you, who are you guys to call these guys out being lazy. WTF.

While I personally think there's more potential in the PS3, I would agree its also more challenging.

The CELL is a monster. Using a massive parallel system is a challenge to debug. If you know what a race condition is then you can up this a bit more if you run multiple independent HW units which are completely autonomous. It is already tricky to do this on a coherent system with multiple cores where you can at least have dev tools to simply set a break points and a debugger allows you to simply stop all threads and cores, but going the extra mile, and doing this with a couple of SPUs is just one level beyond. I couldn't do it, but I also don't have the right tools. I could only use a best guess approach, which is simply not good enough if you want to push the envelope.

Most people will get a brain freeze when there are more then 3 threads running and something goes wrong. Its not their fault, this technology is simply extreme challenging. No degree in the world will help you there. I remember the days I had trouble to memorize a 6502, something which would read like a table of contents compared to a 1000 pages book the current tech is. People didn't turn out to be super humans just because the book got bigger. Its unlike more challenging.

So, please, don't call them lazy. There are different ways to approach the problems, exclusives are one way, but if you support more then one platform, there must be a common denominator in your design. Not an easy task.

c-redz3217d ago

cry me a river!!!! other people work just as hard and have to fire people as well. Welcome to the Sh**y economy! But make the game good and your job gets better and brighter simple, so if they port crap well they get crap!!!!! Simple each system can make a great game, so do it work and shut up. the proof is in the pudding!!!!!

power of Green 3217d ago

Ferrari project(360)

Ferrari Project(360)

"Hi all, I went to Blimey yesterday and met Ian , nice guy and free drinks! Ian made me sign an NDA so I can’t go into any details… but I tried the Ferrari game, all i can say is Holy moly, the gfx are better than Gran turismo, the lighting was spot on, the real time reflections on the car were amazing, the general effects are just a new level"

The 360 hardare is pulling off much more effects and physics all at once.

Ju3217d ago

@PoG, did you just want to underline the lower polycount in Ferrari Project or what's your intention here ? (take very close look at all the round edges, pleeeassse).

vdesai3217d ago

They are not lazy they just are unfamiliar with the base (architecture is not the correct word for this article) of the PS3. The way to work with smaller amounts of high speed ram is to send your data to the processor clear the cache and send new data and this can be done in an instant of time which is not noticeable. This is why the XDR ram was used it makes multi-threading much simpler because its basically a number crunching monster, first the ram is loaded with "stuff" then the "stuff" is sent through the system bus to the processor or the GPU but since the ram for the GPU is completely dedicated there is not need to worry about that so we worry about splitting the data up now into separate threads, this par of the system should always be in the ram, you can't just talk about hardware because you need to talk about software correctly I think they kept objects that are redundant in the ram while the game was on, this is good programing the conventional way but not the way if you want to conserve memory. Devs also have a hard time grasping multi-threading because it takes allot of work to manage each thread, I believe the amount of work increases exponentially per cor o/ cpu. That is why the Xbox is a much more conventional machine because it only has 3 cores and the PS3 has 7 dedicated to gaming. This is why it is much smarter to get a 3.0GHz processor right now over a 1.5GHz dual core.

cherrypie3217d ago

"The GPU in the PS3 is comparable in speed to the 360's GPU"

It is well accepted that the Xbox 360 GPU is superior to the PS3s.

And, the Cell is only superior if a dev takes *a lot* of time and effort to write code to take advantage of it.

That *time and effort* costs money.