Developers Shift To Leading On PS3

NG: We speak to the world's leading devs to discover why the PS3 is taking over as the lead of choice...

According to Final Fantasy XIII producer Yoshinori Kitase, the challenge that the PS3 sets developers is an exciting one of just how far they can push themselves. “When you talk about graphics you can see immediately that the hardware of the PlayStation 3 offers a much higher capacity and is much more powerful,” he told NowGamer, comparing PS3 with Xbox 360...

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Akagi2811d ago

And did I mention it's an awesome powerhouse?

blizzard_cool2811d ago

And did I mention that it's an awesome powerhouse that has free online?

MGRogue20172811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

... And guess who is the best at PS3 development so far??

Naughty Dog with their baby, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves!! So F**king talented! :D

darthv722811d ago

I always felt ps3 should have been lead. When 360 leads it is as if they dont put any more effort into porting the game right to the ps3. Sloppy ports are not acceptable and can only lead to tarnish a devs cred.

PS3 as lead will only make the multiplat games that more equal. Anyone with either console will be getting a quality title if more devs do this.

Anon19742811d ago

Last gen the Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 and everyone knew it. If a game was available on both consoles, the Xbox game always had the edge and developers weren't afraid to maximize what the Xbox had to offer. There was no push to make games look equal across both platforms.

This gen it's different. If a multiplat game is perceived to be slightly inferior on one platform versus the other, internet buzz will sometimes kill a game before it launches and I think that's had developers spooked for a long time.

There's no doubt that the PS3 is the more powerful system but multiplatform developers aren't developing games like they were back last gen. I think they've been afraid to exploit each system's strengths for fear of backlash from the other camp, but thankfully that's changed now and we're seeing multiplatform games routinely look better on the PS3 (we started to see the shift reflected in review scores back in 2009 when PS3 games on average were found to be better than their 360 counterparts).

I think that the playing field is different for developers now. Before, if a PS3 multiplat looked better, you couldn't afford 360 fans to snub your game because they felt they were getting an inferior version. The PS3's installed base wasn't large enough and such a snub could be costly. Now that there are roughly the same amount of PS3's as 360's in the wild, this isn't as much as a factor at present and we're now seeing PS3 games shine.

Or it could just be that games take a long time to develop and we're only now seeing developers getting the hang of working on the PS3.

Or maybe it's a bit of both.

webeblazing2811d ago

i thought it was in they contract not to have the game looking too much different on the other consoles i sworn i read it on this website in 07 correct me if im wrong

Sevir042811d ago

all these 3rd party devs are laaaaaaaate to the party, Insomniac pretty much pioneered PS3 development and ND and GG took it to the next level. First party have been saying it for years. to make the most out of the system. move all your work the the SPUs... nobody listen. it took games like MGS4, Resistance 2. ratchet and clank future, Uncharted, KZ2 to show people how to make games. now 3rd parties are waking up and saying hey we figured it out... No you didn't it was right in your face the whole time. PS3 developers were screaming it. but better late than never.

cmrbe2811d ago

This gen both are about equal in installbase right now. Multi devs can't afford to loose half of their potential clients. Just something i9 though about.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2811d ago
nix2811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

...and thank you Sony for all your great exclusives! if it wasn't for them, no one would have believed anything. 2 years in a row PS3 exclusives have been winning GOTY. this year, it has started with GOW3 and it will end with GT5!

and yeah.. it saves time! q:

EDIT: why does the comment counter says "2" but there's more than 10 already.

mookins2811d ago

Best console I ever owned.

M-Easy2811d ago

Bubble for intelligence!

Brewski0072811d ago

So true. It really does only do everything.... Except maybe cure my hangover :P .
I love that this statment is coming from a final-fantasy xiii producer as it shows they'll be loyal to its cause for years to come no doubt :)

bviperz2811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. Unfortunately most will not get to read 'some' of the great points you made even though you did make some points. I'm no 'greater than thou' type but the fact is in a lot of cases the 'Console War' has nothing to do with a persons immense enjoyment of their preferred gaming platform. Just saying.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2811d ago
vhero2811d ago

Medal of Honour is beating ported from PS3 to 360? That's different you would have thought they would do both versions together but I guess it saves money porting. Porting usually means 1 console gets a bum deal though... As PS3 owners found out the first year or so of the PS3's life..

XeroTrinity2811d ago

Porting doesnt always mean a bad game. FFXIII proved that both games could be very comparable.. However the point of this article is to say that creating the game on the PS3 theeen porting to the xbox you get better results then doing it the other way around.

Trroy2811d ago

The PS3 is the more restrictive architecture, really. If you write your code to work in a very modular, parallel, cache-coherent fashion, like the PS3 requires, chances are you're writing a better 360 game as well.

I'm going to stick my neck out there and say that its certainly plausible that 360 games could benefit from having engine architectures that work well on the more constrained, but faster if you harness it, architecture of the PS3.

Shaman2811d ago ShowReplies(6)
Christopher2811d ago

PS3 is a powerhouse, but that unfortunately is not why you lead on it. It's also harder to develop for considering the greater level of effort needed in managing data and processes. Leading on the PS3 results in setting a good base for both platforms.

No matter which platform you're leading on, you will eventually have to scale something back on both of them if your goal is to have them look as similar as possible.

JoelR2811d ago

this has been stated again and again at GDC but most people seem to miss it.

"Ham also feels the pain, but has come to believe that it’s essential as the PS3 is leading the way to the future of game development. “There’s been a learning curve, but we feel it’s worth it in the end,” he said. “Multi-core development is the future. It’s not impossible to imagine PCs with 24 cores in them within the next few years, so we figure, why not get going with it now?”"

that is since the PS3 has an architecture that is more like future systems that to do the learning now is a good thing.

Christopher2811d ago

Not quite sure what you disagreed with, JoelR? I didn't say that multi-core development wasn't the future or that it wasn't better in the long run, only more difficult.

JoelR2808d ago

the reason is... it really is not more difficult to program for (ask most game developers) just different from the base mindset. Sure if I approach it from a PC centric viewpoint it is difficult but if you approach it from the big iron side of things it's actually quite simple.

StanLee2811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

Simple; they don't want to be flamed when the product is inferior even in the minutest on the platform.

Hallmark Moment2811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

It's easier to develop on the lesser platform first after all the problems in the past, now developers are starting to do PS3 first because they will never have to fight the 360 advantages[because the 360 was not the lead] thus making it easier. This is why multi platform games are always close or slightly better on the 360 no matter lead platform. Any developer trying to win over that radical faction will say anything to please them so they can sell games.

Example: Bungie was hated, now they are loved because they are giving PS3 a chance. Everybody knows how sensitive that group is. Hell the RAGE devs had to come out and say the PS3 version of Rage was more stable just so they could let the media preview the 360 version with out backlash. If the PS3 version is currently more stable why not show off the PS3 version?

waltercross2811d ago

You said Bungie is now Loved? your wrong, I've seen no differences from before to now, just more gossip.

Also there appears to be allot of assumptions in your comment.

D4RkNIKON2811d ago ShowReplies(1)
maka2811d ago

this guys gave a great example about shadow of the colossus, imagine what the games will look like on the ps3 in the future when they can finally use all the power of the ps3, im not 100% sure but i think they already used up all the xbox 360 can do, and we are still early in the console cycle

Theonetheonly2811d ago

Wasnt it 5 years before? according to that time line followed by pretty much all consoles before current, wouldnt that mean the console cycle should be over over. Or soon to be since ps3 launched a year late?

maka2810d ago

Yes still early, if you look at the ps2 it is still going and selling well, and do you really think ps3 and 360 would have release move or natal if they think its gonna be over soon , it takes a few years to make a good games now, and they probably only just started developing games for Natal and Move.

hay2811d ago

Add Kevin Butler to the list.

Persistantthug2811d ago

Now that the PS3 has reached approx 35 million units, you pretty much have to lead on the PS3 or risk suffering a bad port and risk getting shammed and shunned like BAYONETTA did.

Saigon2811d ago

But this was actually a good article...It gave reasons from the devs mouth...

Noctis Aftermath2811d ago

What i found the most interesting was: “Multi-core development is the future. It’s not impossible to imagine PCs with 24 cores in them within the next few years, so we figure, why not get going with it now?”

I'm glad to see some developers have decided to learn from the PS3 and apply the knowledge to multi-core processing for PCs, as it stands now not enough games scale well with multi-cores.

FlameBaitGod2811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

Like many knew, PS3 is the future. True HD vs sub hd and 3d hasnt kicked in yet, when it does.... 360 will probably look really bad. No web browser, No virtual online community, doesn't help in cancer research(it just burns houses), no blu ray player, only supports 1v2 signals when ps3 supports 1v3 and will support 1v4 for 3d while 360 wont, no weather channel and etc.

Wow xero, you do know SE made FF13 for 360 on another engine right, they didn't port it

sgw_dec0y2811d ago

I agree it is a powerhouse of a console. Makes me wonder if they will stick with the cell processor for the next one or move to something that is easier for developers to grasp from the get go.

zeeshan2811d ago

Well somehow, it seems that all the news and articles are more about PS3 than Xbox360. Boy, have Sony gained their momentum or what!?

Comet2811d ago

I'm glad to see how publishers and developers are finally seeing the true potential of the PlayStation 3...
Looks like I bought the right console! ;D

Kassanova072811d ago

It was designed to do so...even Valve admitted it. Excellent engineering.

boysenberry2811d ago

Show yourselves cowards! ;)

2811d ago
SonyOwnsNextYear2811d ago

we still have 5+ years of great quality gamming on the ps3.

+ Show (19) more repliesLast reply 2808d ago
jalen2472811d ago

Leading on PS3 is the way to go

Hellsvacancy2811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

Bubble + 1, Reason? "Well Said"

And oh, its my Birthday 2-day all woop woop woop

2811d ago
THC CELL2811d ago

The guy who made lair has been tellin developers to do this for years

Xwow20082811d ago

too bad the media and the community were focusing on bashing the game.

nnotdead2811d ago

to be fair the game was pretty bad.

MGRogue20172811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

... Why didn't no one listen to him?? omg lol

Ah well, PS3 is starting to spread it's wings now & soar high into the sky.. Before, it was like a baby bird just hatching from it's egg & growing it's wings.. But now, It's a F**king American Bald Eagle! Stand proud PlayStation 3! :D :D :D

Ludakriss2811d ago

I would like to just be frank with y'all if I can. Now I'm all for Sony being the lead platform, but only if this is the right platform to lead on. Don't just jump into illusion that if you like a console it's meant to do the job, and it'll do it best. Otherwise it'll just end up like microsoft which most of the time led teams couse of money and it sometime causes errors when porting to ps versions (I may be ignorant of some facts, then sorry). Plus I just for once want for whichever dev to just really put all they've got into EACH platform AND only THEN say "Yo! this is some and some years work. This is waht we got show us yours" AND only then to truly compare WHEN both 360 and PS3 devs compare the same game. But not ports. Instead, individual work. On an individual platform.

Icyhot2811d ago

Mostly, there are no 'PORTS' for all major releases. Port would be referenced to something like Beyonetta which means it's kind a Inferior on 1 platform. In short, PORT in normal language refers to the 'Inferior' version.

All current day multi-plat engines like Cryengine, Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed engine, GTA engine, COD engine, all of them are designed for parallel development meaning there is no 'PORT'. However, there is a catch, as the engines render the same stuff parallely on both meaning both get equal content... It won't be a case where PS3 gets some more High Res Textures since Blu-Ray can store more or some advantage to the 360 since it's GPU is unified architecture, but it also won't be a case where the games are just ported from X to Y meaning Y suffers a lot since it ain't optimized.

no one is gonna sit and develop games from scratch for both consoles and optimize 1 for it's benefits and the other one for it's... It would be costly, take more time and would really spark off a fanboy debate over 1 version getting better content. Thats the truth. At least we are now nearly out of the phase of inferior ports.. Hopefully.

Ju2811d ago

I would still think, that if the art department delivers high res assets (textures and polygons) and the technical artists scale that for the proper platform you can get maximum performance on both ends. But that exposes two different engine front ends to the art queue. Exactly what multiplatform engines try to avoid. Same with shaders and "micro-programs" to, e.g. post process raw art and pre-"compile" it for the proper engine. I think that is doable, but it requires a little bit of an adjusted workflow, not just in the SW departments.

Ludakriss2811d ago

Well thanks. You know. My thought on the whole LETS SEE WHO'S GOT BETTER TECH is just so people could finally JUST PLAY! You know. Better yet. Maybe Microsoft AND Sony fuse. Kinda like a true meaning of multiplayer. A console against console would be accessible and you could have cyber-friends from another platform. Wouldn't that be tasty?

Pennywise2811d ago

Hi, Frank... Some companies can not afford to have two teams working on two separate versions of the same game... This is why leading on the PS3 is so important for those companies. The quality of a game lead developed on the PS3 and ported to the 360 is higher than the opposite.

zoks3102811d ago

With this generation coming to an end no doubt developer are looking at how to save money and invest into next generation of consoles at the same time, and to be honest the PS3 allows them to do this. The PS3 future proof build will most likely allow devs to develop on the PS3 and port over to the next Xbox or the next Wii and eventually the next PlayStation.

So in essence Sony sacrificed launching the PS3 when the 360 launched to allow their engineers more time to build a console that will give them a head start into the next generation, and now we see 3rd party developers taking advantage of that early bridge into the next gen of consoles all while saving money.

Silver3602811d ago (Edited 2811d ago )

come out with a gig or more of ram you are telling me the PS3 will be able to run these games
The console is not future proof it is the most powerful console right now, but that doesn't make it future proof. The year long delay was not for hardware improvements, but for costs and blu-ray implementation. Remember the original design called for two cell chips. The extra one had to removed because of cost. And to be honest two cell chips would have rocked, oh well maybe for ps4.

Pennywise2811d ago

"The year long delay was not for hardware improvements, but for costs and blu-ray implementation"

Blu-ray implementation is a hardware improvement.

Also, any new consoles coming out will need at LEAST a gig of ram and the most powerful hardware available. It will cost over $600.00 and still not be enough of a reason for consumers to upgrade. I know I will not upgrade my PS3 until there is a reason to.

hazeblaze2811d ago

Of course it's the right platform to lead on... By leading on the most powerful system, it's easier to port to the 360, period. We saw this years ago w/ Burnout Paradise being an excellent example. And more recently Batman:AA. Games that lead on the PS3 simply tend to run better.