Mars developed for "complicated" PS3 first

TVGB: "While talking about their upcoming action RPG Mars, due out in late 2010, Spiders Games CEO Jehanne Rousseau told That VideoGame Blog that they're focused primarily on developing a great PS3 game first because "the PS3 is a very complicated platform.""

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
G3TDOWN3373d ago

Some say it's the most powerful
some say it's not the most powerful
some say it's easy
some says it's hard

NO PaIN, NO GAIN !!!! Naughty and Gurilla teach them something

Blaze9293373d ago

Why do developers speak on it at all just so that when the final product doesn't delivery they are the dumb ones. Ghostbusters was made for PS3 primary and first...look how that turned out.

THC CELL3373d ago


TR Lied
If ghostbusters was developed on the ps3 and ported to xbox
i will stand on my bell end and walk to work tomorrow

Kushan3373d ago

Multiplatform games aren't "Made" for one console, then ported to another. Most of the time, they're developed side-by-side with one platform being the "lead" platform.

You make it sound like Ghostbusters was finished on the PS3 months and months ago, then ported to the 360 (or vice versa) while the PS3 code sat on ice. That's just silly.

Greywulf3373d ago

Well thats 1 out of all of n4g.

ChickeyCantor3373d ago


Sure they would learn something if Sony is supporting them on the financial part.

Blaze9293373d ago

Ahhhh so explain Final Fantasy 13.

Kushan3373d ago

Final Fantasy 13? The game that hasn't been released yet, in any country or on any platform, but has a PS3 Demo and was shown running on a 360 at E3? That Final Fantasy 13?

XLiveGamer3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

"NO PaIN, NO GAIN !!!! Naughty and Gurilla teach them something"

Hey ignorant the economy its fnck up and to develop a game on PS3 you need a lot time compared to the other consoles because of how fncking complicated it is to work on it and time in this business its gold.
Do you know why? Because people don't work for free and they have responsibilities and i bet they have more responsibilities than you. This is not a regular job like the one you have in a supermarket or a fast food.

Naughty and Guerilla are backed by Sony so guess how they get the amount of money necessary to pay those long hours on the projects.
So instead of blaming the developers blame Sony for it. Developers are here to earn money WHAT part of that you don't understand.



snp3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

I suspect this recent thing of publicly stating the PS3 version to be lead platform might be more a case of getting PS3 users on side than anything else. The early PS3 ports didn't particularly shine, hence PS3 users are potentially - or are maybe seen to be - leary of cash-in ports of these multiplaform/360 games. The 360 versions, at least historically, have been more a dependable standard so the dev's don't really need to court any favours/rebuild any trust there.

Mind you whether their actually telling the truth or not, though, i think is another matter.

CWMR3373d ago

-Hopefully that will help them make a better ps3 version, although from past experience this doesn't always work out. The 360 versions usually still end up looking better. Why should developers work two or three times as hard trying to bring the ps3 versions up to par when many of the ps3 legion say they only buy ps3 exclusives? That's a raw deal for developers. Sony should have designed a better console. What's the point of a bunch of theoretical power if the majority of developers can't effectively utilize it?-

sirbigam3373d ago

I hard to talk their word after the developers from the Ghostbuster fiasco screwed ps3 owners over, after they gave us their word.

AKNAA3373d ago

"they’re focused primarily on developing a great PS3 game first because “the PS3 is a very complicated platform.”

Thanks for the warning! I'll be sure to avoid this game as I did with ghostbusters...
I noticed that whenever a developer says that the ps3 is complicated to develop for that tells me the game will be inferior to the 360 version. But if a dev. says that its not as complicated as they say( like tecmo, capcom, first party dev.) It gives me more confident that the game will turn out good, just like ninja gaiden sigma, RE5, SF4, cod4.

thereapersson3373d ago

Developing on a system first is no guarantee of quality. Terminal Reality dropped the ball when it was in their court, and the results of their efforts show through.

Anon19743373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

CWMR said "The 360 versions usually still end up looking better."

How, exactly, do you back up that statement? It certainly doesn't seem to be the opinion of the bulk of professional game reviewers. Have you checked metacritic recently?
Of the 50 games released both on the PS3 and 360 so far this year, 70% of those titles scored better on the PS3 or tied.
It's a constantly parroted comment that "The 360 versions are better." If this was the case, why wouldn't this be reflected in review scores overall?

JasonPC360PS3Wii3373d ago

Sing it with me... Excuuuuses and even more excuuuses... lalala... excuuuses... again.

Syronicus3373d ago

Is anybody actually keeping this title on their radar? TI have not heard of this game until now. Is this supposed to be a big deal? Sorry, but for all the fanboy hate going on right now, I just thought I would ask if this game is even worth arguing over.

gaffyh3373d ago

I'm pretty sure these guys developed on PS3 first because they are using Sony's free PS3 Phyre Engine to develop the game on.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3373d ago
THC CELL3373d ago

man at least this development team is not as weak as Valve
And T R ( Ghostbusters)
Big up to them man

GiantEnemyCrab3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

Yeah what are Valve ?? They only made games like Half-Life, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead.. I mean these guys are obviously superior since they developed.....nothing.. just ported a bunch of crap that nobody heard of.

Sounds like sour grapes because they don't want to develop on the PS3.

I wonder if I said the same thing about Insomniac if you would agree or if you and the zealots would go ballistic.

WEL3373d ago

GiantEnemyCrab the comment of THC CELL is understandable. Who would you consider superior dev: Some whiners that only develop for the easy PC and call the PS3 hard or someone that actually develop for more than one console and at least tries?

THC CELL is not saying that the Valve games suck but that their skills are weak. Valve says that the PS3 is hard and insomniac actually develops for it so, how tha hell would you say that insomniac is weak?

Bnet3433373d ago

Uhh ... did you just call Valve weak? Yeah, you did. Fail.

Kushan3373d ago

What about the dev that makes the most money?
I mean, say what you want about Valve, but they're hardly swimming on the verge of bankruptcy these days, are they?

RememberThe3573373d ago

But I still think Valve is one of the best video game devs out there. Half-Life 2 is one of the best games of all time.

With that said, they seem scared of the PS3. That makes them look weak. Until they make themselves look stronger (by supporting the PS3 or making games better then L4D, i.e. Half-Life 3) I'm going with these guys and saying they're weak.

cmrbe3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

The Cell was refering to the fact that Valve said the same thing. The PS3 is complicated.

We don't really know what Valve meant by that. I don't agree that they are lazy but i think Valve are being complacent.

I have no problems with them not dev for the PS3. I only have an issue with fat Gabe for bashing the PS3 without even dev anything for us PS fans.

In the same way it would be completely unacceptable for Ted to say crap about the x360 without even doing anything on the x360.

Edit: @Chaosatom: Valve are PC devs. They are set in the way they dev games. They only make minor changes to the way they dev games when they get more resources like more ram or better GPU and CPU in time. Ever wonder why they are still using the source engine?. For them the tech they will dev for PS3 console will only be good to them for the PS3 era only. They see that as a waste of time. Thats ok. Thats their position.

Valve are comfortable with where they are at the moment but they better be careful and not be complacent.They should look at ID to find out what happens to PC devs when they were complacent.

chaosatom3373d ago

Why not?

Don't want the extra money?
Don't want more people to play their games?
Don't want to hire new people who can program for ps3?
Are a second party or first party of MS like Insomniac is to Sony?

Crab: Valve doesn't make superior games, their team does. If they gave their team a PS3 to work on and modified their engine, then they can start making games for it.

YogiBear3373d ago

While I agree with you that Valve has developed great franchises(minus left4dead)the elitist attitude they have always had annoys me. There is a fine line between being self confident and downright arrogant. That being said, Half-life is one of my absolute favorite games ever.

GiantEnemyCrab3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

What is so hard to understand that Valves studio situation is based around the PC and the 360 works well into their development environment while the PS3 doesn't.

Harsh words from Gabe aside that is the way they feel on the PS3 and they don't want to invest in it. It doesn't make them bad developers because they have a way of doing things and enjoy it with much success.

Like I said, replace Valve with Insomniac and you wouldn't hear such things. Some developers just want to work on certain platforms and it reflects nothing of their skill. WEL I said nothing about Insomniac being a bad developer. I'm just saying what is so different from what Valve does and what Insomniac does or any second party developer? So flipping this around using Remembers comment Insomniac are weak because they seem scared of the 360.

cmrbe3373d ago

the difference is.

I.G 2nd party since the PS1 era.

Valve 3rd party.

Ted had noting to say about the x360. Actually he had a lot of good things to say about the competition.

Gabe called on Sony to scrap the PS3 and go for a redo without even dev a game for the PS3 which was only a few months old then.

Its not exactly the same.

chaosatom3373d ago

agree with cmrbe there.

JokesOnYou3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

Well its essentially the same thing, it doesn't matter if insomniac personal reasons go back to ps1, the fact is insomniac chooses to only make games for ps because thats who they are comfortable with= 360 fans just see it as a business decision/agreement and thats life= NO crying. Valve likes the PC/360 architechture because thats their roots. To say they are lazy or somehow not good enough to work on ps3 is absurd. Its like saying a automotive tech who specializes in NASCAR engines can't fix Indy car engines, sure he could with a little effort to learn the nuances/differences but he loves working on NASCAR engines, its where his passion is and he's been doing it so long he's recognized as one of the best, he loves the way NASCAR peforms and even though working on Indy cars too would lead to more money he's just not that so bad? I think Valve have made it clear many times that they don't like ps3 architechture and don't care to pursue it just for the money, it doesn't make them bad dev's, it just makes them dev's who MADE A CHOICE, just like insomniac did years ago.

I'm betting had a 3rd party dev with Valve's creditability came out this gen and said, "Hey we just love the ps3's tech and we're going to focus on making only ps3 games this gen because *we think its best for the types of games we want to do."= sony loyalists: "lol, See I told you ps3 is 'teh best, more dev's should do this."


Ausbo3373d ago

valve doesn't develop for the ps3 because it is not a good financial decsion. Valve has no support from sony and no one who can develop for their system. That is why EA ported The orange box, because valve doesn't have the resources to do so. Give them a break they make great games.

CWMR3373d ago

-So true, JokesOnYOu. What a great comment. Lots of devs have said that the ps3 is difficult to work with, why is it so surprising that some developers have decided that it isn't worth it? John Carmack doesn't like the ps3's design either and said it requires at least twice the effort to code for the ps3 as the 360, the only difference being that Id apparently decided it was worth the effort. Some developers are basically forced by their publishers to make their games multiplatform no matter how much they hate developing on the ps3.-

evrfighter3373d ago

When Valve sells games on Steam the profit margin is almost 100% - bandwidth cost per download which is probably around $.50-$1.00 per DL.

I've said it before already but I'm guessing when a steam title hits a million sold on steam alone. They are more than likely taking in more profit than a game on a console which sells 3-4 million boxed copies. They can advertise on their own platform to the tens of millions of gamers at no charge. Other developers have started adding their titles to steam. Who knows how much of a percentage steam is taking on each sale. They really are in a position where they can piss off a console camp and not even think about bankruptcy.

Now why as a developer would you want even MORE stress when the money's already flowing like water?

YogiBear3373d ago

I am not criticizing Valve for their lack of PS3 support. If they want to turn down more money and more fans that is entirely their problem. My comment was made about the general attitude they have had since 1998, the year Half-Life was released. They talked down about every avenue of gaming except PC. They have lightened up to an extent now because their former boss Bill Gates now has a gaming console out but their games aren't perfect and their sh!t stinks just like the next guy. But like I said before the Half-Life franchise is one of the greatest in gaming no matter what you play.

randomwiz3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

i doubt that valve is not developing for the ps3 because "its too complicated". Well... kind of.

they won't develop for the ps3 because they see profits in something they've already learned. Why would they spend more time and money to learn something thats relatively new, when they're making money?

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3373d ago
cmrbe3373d ago

That is what i really like to know. However judging from what GG and ND have done sofar i think its the latter.

The PS3 is new and more advance. It will take another few years for most devs mostly 3rd party to understand it and get even more out of it.

This is all part of Sony's plan imo. Design for bigger and long term potential over ease of use. In this way the PS3 last alot longer.

SnukaTheMan3373d ago

If it was more advanced they would not be in third place...regardless of price people would be clamoring for the ps3 at the 600$ mark.

BlackTar1873373d ago

Unfortunatley that may be what you think but it couldnt be farther from the truth and since im sure you say that becasue of dislike i have to bring into account the xbox 1. was the best tech wise and never had a chance.

on this article though its okay for devs to have a hard time its history and its repeating itself again and probably in 2 consoes will happen again and people will clamour at the idea that its brand new thing not remembering that it was said fgor ps1 ps2 and ps3. Some have to remember but as a whole genral rule of thumb the internet has a very short memory.

someday they will sing a differnt tune that doe not make them lazy it means there espressing there thoughts at this present time. Video games and consoles can not stay using the same tech ideas going forward forever tech moves forward and we as people/companies have to change with it or get passed up. at somepoint everyone will understand it but until then its not a fault of valve or these people if they cant yet. The only issue with valve to me is there running of the mouth and no interest at all so not trying equals instant fail to me. But on that note half life 1 is in my top 5 closely by 2 and portal as my top 3 puzzlers of all time so i have nothing but love for them altogther.

cmrbe3373d ago

Use logic.

The PS3 is in 3rd place because it came out a year late and at 200 more than the nearest competition without most of its big guns out yet. You look at the wii and x360 all of their top franchise are already out unlike Sony with a price advantage of 100-200.

Despite the fact that the PS3 is more feature packed than competition. The majority of people still don't see the revelence of these features for the time being. Ken's design was to pack all of these features in to prolong the PS3 revelence in the the long run. I think i don't need to explain.

Anyway my point was not so much about the features but rather the fact that the PS3 is more advance when it comes to game development.

CWMR3373d ago

-More complicated does not mean more advanced. To say that the ps3 is more advanced would be to imply that future consoles will be moving more towards the ps3's design, which is not going to happen. The 360 and ps3 are both multicore and multithreaded architectures and the future will be multithreaded, but the truth is it will be closer to the 360 design than the ps3 design. I can virtually guarantee that future consoles from the 3 console makers will be closer to the 360's design than the ps3's design. Hopefully Sony has learned from their mistakes and doesn't try to foist an inefficient and unwieldy architecture on the development community like they have with their past two consoles.-

onanie3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

For all the cries about how "complicated" the PS3 hardware is, it still produced the best looking visuals this generation. It doesn't need any other argument to prove how "advanced" it is.

Perhaps what some of these developers call "complicated" is just 'different' - like learning a new language. Sure they'll biatch about it, but inevitably, as Naughty Dog and even a third party like Capcom has consistently shown, they will speaking it fluently.

SnukaTheMan3373d ago

You just made my point....the wii is past the xbox 360 and the ps3 and is considered underpowered yet has hit 50 million consoles sold...the wii came late as well but is on top of both hd consoles. If people perceived the ps3 as more advanced then people would not mind spending 600-500$ on the console because they look at the future potential of the advanced machine...the ps3 has proved more times that it is not the most advanced and even better then the xbox 360 that is cheaper as we speak.

onanie3373d ago

23 MILLION people didn't mind spending the "600-500$", so going by your argument, the PS3 IS advanced enough to be worth the price tag.

What is more amazing is that PS3 is selling at a faster rate than the 360, even at those price levels.

BWS19823373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

the more advanced technology does not automatically sell better. There's a big difference, and to prove you wrong, look at a Honda Accord and a Porsche, look at a regular DVD and Blu-ray... look at a $500 budget PC and look at an i7 965 w/ a GTX295....Some consumers care simply about cost, some care simply about features, most weigh the two, but your statement is a complete fallacy. Illogical.

Trying to claim that the PS3 isn't advanced and then using it's place in sales as leverage for your statement is ludicrous, you realize that don't you? Besides, as was said above me, the PS3 actually outpaced the 360 in a side by side launch vs. now comparison, and at a higher price...but that's another issue.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3373d ago
jdktech20103373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

Who cares if it's the most powerful or isn't....and all that stuff

I enjoy the games that 360 offers and therefore I own a 360. I would own a PS3 as well but I don't have the money and need to prioritize other things above video games. It's extremely silly to have a shouting match over stuff that is completely opinion. Strongly discussing I can understand but most discussions, news posts, comments make it sound like if you don't believe what is written, you're the anti-christ or something.....

Come on people......

Anyway, I'm not even sure what this game is so I don't really care if it's not for 360...don't think I'll be missing, please if you're gonna disagree at least give a reason and stop being a coward/mindless baboon who can't even backup his/her actions with an explanation....

condorstrike3373d ago

you guys can't take any type of criticism.

I'm pretty sure these game developers know how to make games, thus they know what they're talking about, no one said it's inferior, just that's it's complicated, same thing happened when 16bit games came out, at first you couldn't notice the difference between 8bit and 16 and eventually developers got the hang of it.

don't take all news as bad news. jeez you people are edgy.

D4RkNIKON3373d ago (Edited 3373d ago )

You people? That just came off a little bit wrong.. I am pretty sure you feel a strong segregation in the community as you try to keep it that way. Please take your opinions to the open zone where they belong.

RememberThe3573373d ago

I like what he is saying. He thinks that if they focus on the PS3 first, and get their ducks in a row, developing for the other platform with go more smoothly. When tackling a problem you generally address the hardest problem first. Besides you can never improve if you never push yourself.