Tretton blames third parties for PS3 software deficiencies

SCEA wants to encourage, but cannot control third parties

Speaking to at an E3 roundtable, SCEA president Jack Tretton addressed the issue of some games looking better on the 360 than they do on the PS3.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TruthHurts3903d ago (Edited 3903d ago )

its their creation.

your the MAN Jack.

bubbles PLEASE PS Fans.
help each other out.

sony fan3903d ago

Hey PS fans, lets all agree that it is not the fact that the PS3 takes more time and money in development to equal the 360, what with its advanced hardware and all, that causes the problem. Lets all say jackie is right about blaming third parties,(who they need badly).Bad graphics is the price you pay for an advanced machine. Wait, that does'nt make sense now does it? Maybe they should have made it with the idea of playing games instead of blue-ray movies.

popup3903d ago

I don't think you will ever understand Sony Fan :(

CyberSentinel3902d ago (Edited 3902d ago )

Instead of offering advanced toolsets like your first and second party developers have access to. Do not provide any counseling/funding for these games that require more money/time/labor then on other platforms. No instead you b!tch. I guess thats alot easier to do, since you don't know jack, jack.

SCEA President Jack Tretton told PSM in the latest issue:

"We have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3902d ago
Lord Anubis3903d ago

well, he is right they can't do nothing more than help them, Sony can't control third party.

clownfacemcgee3902d ago

He didn't blame third parties. God, that's possibly one of the worst headlines I've seen. Totally malicious. He said they can't control third parties, but they encourage them to make good games. How's that bad? He even said it's in both Sony's and the developer's best interest to create top quality games. I'm not buying a game that's half baked. I'm not buying a game that doesn't look as good on my console as it does on the other consoles. If they don't make my game look good, then why should I even buy the game? I'm trying to get a good game, not a mediocre one. I don't have $60 to blow on every Grade B game. And I definitely don't have money to blow on a game that comes out a tiny bit shinier every year. (i.e. the vast majority of sports games, I'll go play the game in real life instead of on my t.v.) =)

Back on track. All he really said was that the games that devs put more time into would pay off far better for them. Look at how much time was put into games like Halo and the massive pay off they have.

TL243903d ago

i hope they're reading what Tretton said.

unbiased3903d ago

he would love to say [email protected] EA! what are you DOING! but then EA may fire back with no more Madden or something. Its like Sony is prisoner to crappy 3rd parties. Don't worrie I'm sure then will pick up the pace after these great first parties git.

kewlkat0073903d ago (Edited 3903d ago )

Especially when you give them a new hardware architect, that has to be re-thinked all over on how to program efficiently, as if Sony's support and tools, have nothing to do with it? This is not something I would say Jack.

so Jack "why do most of the 3rd-party games look lackluster compared to the competitors counterparts? "well, it's the developers, blame them". WTF..

Sony Support and Tools work hand in hand. Just as MS and their tools/support, as well as the wii, which there is no learning curve, whatsoever besides learning to be creative.

LeonSKennedy4Life3903d ago

It's the fault of the developers being lazy...except Bethesda on Oblivion, EA Chicago on FNR3, and Starbreeze on The Darkness. At least THEY fully utilized the PS3 and put the best versions of the game on there.

riqued3903d ago

Rainbow Six was a good port, Ubisoft just needed to spend some time on it...
It's their fault, but Sony can help of course. They just made a deal to improve the Unreal Engine to fit the PS3 hardware, making ports easier.

sajj3163903d ago (Edited 3903d ago )

Consistency is everything to me. If the ports were consistently bad, I'd agree with the argument that Sony's tools and Support is not up to par. The problem is that there is a spectrum of bad->great ports and varies between companies. While some companies take the time to produce a quality product tailored to the system's strengths, others do not. I would like to point Ubisoft and EA games as the developers/publishers that rush the product out versus Team Ninja and Bethsada. Ubisoft did a bad job on Splinter Cell and then delivered a decent port of Rainbow Six. Now, what does a bad port do for the publisher, developer, and Sony? Why even port the game if you are going to do horrible job on it? It ruins your credibility in the eyes of gamers like you and I. This also holds true if a PS3 game is ported to the 360. Technically, despite the variations in architecture, you could produce a 90-100% identical port. The problem is that certain developers/publishers opt to maximize of profit by releasing the game shortly after the timed exclusive period is over or shortly after the game is released on the rival platform.

<<EDIT>> If you are going to disagree, at least have the testicles to state your point.

kewlkat0073903d ago (Edited 3903d ago )

Well yeah I know but you have to remember "Not all Developers are Created Equal" regardless of what this guy has been willing to do or whatever resources this big time developer have over the other.

There are so many factors involved, we games don't really hear about or care to know about when it comes to game development.

Not every developer is gonna give you a great game.
Or have money to spend on a killzone 2 type project.
Or will make a game that looks like Gears.
Or have 3rd and 4th tiered teams.
Or have multiple SDK, and one for each Programmer.SDK=$1300 Wii, $15,000MS, and $30,000 Sony.

It's not just the developer sucked, cause of they was always the case then they would always make sucky games. You just can't blame 3rd parties this first year with what or little sony has given them. Sony never been known for great support and tools in the first place. We all know why MS has been, just as we say Sony had good hardware, well MS have very good tools and support.

There are some strengths and weaknesses that will become less important over time but this first year, Sony gave developers this Box and said make up great games, and promised great games form the start. They miscalculated their architecture and the learning curve. My thing is, you can't just do that and expect superb results from the getgo.

Don't you think Developers are also under pressure?Don't you think Sony wanted those ports?, even 2 really 2 games have stand out. Of course the developers are going to make the ports, while on this learning curve, so why give them sh!t for trying. Plus its not like the games are total sh!t, anyhow.

sajj3163903d ago

Can anyone explain to me why the publishers/developers admitted to rush jobs even on the Wii. If the shoddy ports occurred on the Wii, arguably a smaller learning curve than the PS3 and 360, why wouldn't they occur on the PS3 (arguably the highest learning curve). Ubisoft and Activision have admitted to this. Yes, I know that the discussion was PS3 and 360 but the point is to expose development on ports.

Ubisoft admitting

Activision admitting

Arkham3903d ago

He did not say that. The title, also, is very misleading. The article's sub-title should have been the one used on this submission.

This kind of conflubbering of information is truly what feeds fanboyism. Holy crap it's tiring.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3903d ago
crck3903d ago

He isn't blaming anyone. But he is saying 3rd parties are responsible for what they put out. If you put out crappy ports people arent going to buy them.

TLSBill3902d ago

He never said "It's their fault", or somesuch. Just said he can't controll what they put out. F- to the author for the headline.