Top
130°

Ubisoft dev: More platforms equals more compromises

By choosing to release a game over multiple platforms, developers are forced to make compromises on quality, GamesRadar has been told by Mathieu Ferland, senior producer for Splinter Cell: Conviction, Sam Fisher's fifth spy adventure and an exclusive for Xbox 360 and PC.

"Developing a game for multiple consoles is not so difficult but it requires certain compromises, usually quality compromises" explains Ferland. Previously, not wanting to compromise too much, Ubisoft has taken the expensive route of employing different teams for different platforms, in order to 'invest' fully in the strengths of each console. "If such investment is not done," Ferland tells Games Radar, "every feature unique to a console will not be used and a game will generally end up with a 'lower quality'".

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Silverwolf3745d ago (Edited 3745d ago )

Multi-platform games usually suck for one or the other console. That's why all these comparisons between multi-platform games are nothing but fan boy flame bait. Only those who don't know squat will base how good a platform is, based on a multi-platform games. When these muti-platform game comparison's are done I look at the comments and filter out those who actually know and follow the industry from those who just spew sh!t out of there mouths.

jwatt3745d ago

I actually prefer multiplatform games.

Blasphemy3745d ago

Okay if Ubisoft actually has seperate developers making ports for these games why the hell are their PS3 ports so bad?

TheMART3745d ago

"I think a lot of this goes back to the proliferation of the Internet, where a very vocal minority can make a lot of noise and potentially alter perceptions of the masses, whether they are accurate or not. A lot of this, naturally, is driven by the media who seem focused on taking swipes at us lately, without taking in the full picture."

Dave Karakker, Sony America’s Director of Corporate Communications

When I saw this quote, I was flat out flabbergasted. The concept of a consumer scapegoat seemed to me, low and a concession of failure. However, after thinking about it, he was slightly correct. A vocal minority has always had great influence. (In this case I don’t believe it is a minority at the moment; however, with the Playstation 2’s success, I can see where he gets that concept) In this case, the main problem with the Playstation 3 is games and price point. Why do we all think this? Well, because there are currently better alternatives out there: the Wii for the cheaper, casual gamer and the Xbox 360 for a gamer focus more upon solid games. Does this mean the Ps3 is dead? I would think not…

The Ps3 has “failed” because of two main stigma associated with it, lack of quality games, and high price. Both have been spurred on by the internet community and the media, but if it had been handled well by Sony, neither would have been an issue…"

and

"What could Sony have done better? Not hype Killzone 2 like it is Halo 3. Killzone one was mediocre at best. Why would I be excited for a sequel? (Hopefully I’m proved wrong) Hype up something else."

So true.

neogeo3745d ago (Edited 3745d ago )

Or Get some programmers on the phone from Sony or other 3rd parties and learn how to program for the cell. So far, Ubisoft has made PS3 look bad with Splinter cell looking not as nice as the 360.

Maybe we should cut them some slack. The 360 is much easier to program for then PS3. Maybe in a year we will see ports looking the same or a bit better.

Show all comments (9)