Top
330°

Midway's Bilder Talks X360 To PS3 Conversion Issues

Midway Chicago studio head Mike Bilder has been discussing next-gen conversion issues on the company's Stranglehold as part of an in-depth Gamasutra interview, noting that it was "a more difficult endeavor" to overcome memory and processor challenges on the PlayStation 3 than on the Xbox 360 or PC.

The PS3 version of Stranglehold shipped around 6 weeks after the X360 version, and Gamasutra discussed why a number of titles are seeing similar (if short) delays to debut the PS3 version. Bilder explained of his experiences on action title Stranglehold:

"Hindsight's always 20/20, but we've kept all of the builds in a similar development state all along. What we found, though, when we tried to get some of it game-ready and fitting on the disc and fitting in memory, in the end it was an easier endeavor on two of the SKUs and it was a more difficult endeavor on one of them. Just, to be honest, the hardware differences in memory and processor on the PS3 vs. traditional PC and 360, it makes it a challenge, and it's representative. Everybody's having a challenge in the industry right now."

Read Full Story >>
gamasutra.com
The story is too old to be commented.
AliC3368d ago

And the games still not out in Europe yet.

Ri0tSquad3368d ago

I have it for the 360 and I don't see this selling on the ps3. There too late.

ruibing3368d ago

I have a PS3 and I won't be getting this, not because it was late or anything, but because there's already a lot of games (both exclusives and crossplatformers) that just forced this game off my list from the very beginning.

Xi3368d ago

"The difficulty you run into there, at least in the last generation, was that the Xbox was considerably more powerful than the PS2, and you found that people didn't always take advantage of the hardware. Whereas with the PS3 and the 360, it's certainly more of a level playing field, so I don't think it's necessarily a negative to put the PS3 first. But it does help mitigate some of that risk in framerate, memory, technology, just the hardware differences."

This is the consensus in the developing community and in the industry, the ps3 is slightly stronger than the 360 but it's not to the extremes that Sony or the fanbois are making it out to be.

gamesblow3368d ago

When using multi-tools to develop with.. Yeah, the ps3 isn't much stronger... when using exclusive tools to dev with. The ps3 is 2 folds stronger. It's all in the tools and when you have multi-platform code you can't get all crazy with it. IT's going to be a strict development process. Don't fool yourself. The CPU in the PS3 litterally cripples the GPU and CPU of the xbox 360 combined. It's all in the dev tools, folks.

wageslave3368d ago

"Whereas with the PS3 and the 360, it's certainly more of a level playing field"

How did you come to this " the ps3 is slightly stronger than the 360" conclusion?

It doesnt say that at all. It sounds far more like what IGN said in their hardware shoot-out:

"When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3."

http://xbox360.ign.com/arti...

IGN further went on to say " Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment. "

Which sounds like you have it about right when you said "it's not to the extremes that Sony or the fanbois are making it out to be"

Clearly, we see it again here with Stranglehold (and again with PES 2008 and Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 just this *week* alone). That the design of the PS3 requires far more effort to reach par performance with the Xbox 360.

Thats the bottom line. Its the whole story of PS3 vs. Xbox 360; "PS3 gives you less for more"

Xi3368d ago

of those that bought into the sony hype. I bet you also thought that the ps2 could do toy story like graphics eh?

The ps3 is not "2 fold" in strength when compared to the 360, if that were the case then you could run crysis on the ps3 without a problem, but the dev clearly stated the game is not possible on either platform. Not to mention you have a dev clearly stating that the difference in the systems is less than that of last gen, and the xbox was not 2 times more powerful than the ps2. You have numerous other developers saying that the systems are nearly equal in power.

Also The gpu in the 360 is able to preform dx10 features, I ask, why then can the ps3 not if it's 2 times the power. Why is it that the 360 can preform HDR lighting in full. When the original Xbox released it had the best looking console games to date, such is not the case with the ps3, even though dev kits for both platforms were released at the same time. Snap out of it dude.

The ps3 is mildly stronger than the 360 it's power comes from the abilty to stream data at very high ammounts which is a requirement for blu-ray to work, but it does not compute branching code, ooo coding, or much convential gaming code well, but excels in parellel coding. It also has blu-ray which is a double edged sword such that it's a slower drive and cannot stream data as fast off the disc, however it offers up much more space. Some people just don't want to look at their investment as what it is, and will do anything to justify their purchase, enjoy the games man, i do.

LOL PS3 IS JUNK LOL3368d ago

"Whereas with the PS3 and the 360, it's certainly more of a level playing field"

That to me seems like a comments saying they both have the same power.

Xi - you jump in and twist the words to make it seem like the PS3 is faster

gamesblow - Your pathetic existence then jumps in and says its "two folds" more powerful with their dev tools. You are a freaking moron dude. Can you please provide the N4G community with some proof? No...you are a moron who doesn't know what he is talking about. You are just defending your poor purchase....you are really really stupid.

-1 bubble for you. I suggest everyone else removes a bubble from gamesblow as well. The PS3 community is funny to watch and sad to read.

Proxy3368d ago

People like Computer Engineers buy PS3's and build all kinds of advance programs to run on them. Unless you suggest that these people like to pay more money for a less powerful system, then we have to concluded that the PS3 does have something special under its hood.

Whether this will give an advantage in the gaming department remains to be seen.

Martini3368d ago

....... " so I don't think it's necessarily a negative to put the PS3 first. But it does help mitigate some of that risk in framerate, memory, technology, just the hardware differences......"
He seems to be implying that if you make game on PS3 it will be easy to make it run on 360 but if you make 360 game and try to make it run on PS3 it will strugle with memory/framerate problems. So 360 > PS3 according to this guy.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3368d ago
razer3368d ago

These developers need to just cancel these games.. I think they are spending more on the extra development time then they will make a profit. As the attach rate proves, PS3 people don't buy games but instead jerk-it to Blu-ray movies and talk to their friends about how good the cell processor is.

PS: I've rented, played and finished this game and have moved on like a month ago.. LOL

gamesblow3368d ago

I'll agree on 1 thing here... no one wants to play a game that's been out for months on end. VF 5... MGS4... UT3... HAZe... I think these will be interesting match ups in a few months when we see who's who when playing "old" games.

Proxy3368d ago

I someone bought a PS3 today they would probably buy Resistance, even though it's been out almost a year.

I but those who made the switch from PS2 to 360 bought the original Halo game, even though that's years old.

Perhaps the attach rate is low because people refuse to buy crappy ports. Give me a good port, or give me nothing at all.

Bloodmask3368d ago

of the ease of development for the 360. Notice in the article how the developer cites that the 360 and the PC versions were developed simultaneously. This is the way it should be, so developers can focus on making great games instead of struggling to get their games to run efficiently.

Also note that in the article the developer cites how the PS3 and 360 are "relatively" equal in power. Basicly the PS3 and the Cell are a poor architecture for games development, which will take longer to garner the "same" results as PC and 360. Notice I didn't say "better". That is why developers are dropping PS3 versions of games. Because of high development costs and low install base.

GIJeff3368d ago (Edited 3368d ago )

youre such a dumbass

EDIT: i guess bloodmask dissagreed..happy halloween.

thereapersson3368d ago

What a surprise. More SPAM from Bloodmask the repeater! Do you sit next to your keyboard with a .txt file open ready to copy and paste your canned replies?

Yet another example... blah blah FUD FUD .... teh cell is hard to program for...

Man, just lighten up and play games!

Einherjaren3368d ago

In the beginning the PS2 was extremely hard to program games for! But look at them now..This will apply to Ps3 as well!

There are several teams out there struggling to make easy to use dev.tools, but as of now only a few developer teams want to devote themselves to the current tools in order to make True Nextgen games: 1080P!!

Meus Renaissance3368d ago (Edited 3368d ago )

Many of your points are irrelevant.

The performance for the PS3 is clear for everyone to see in their 1st party line ups. It's foolish to make comparisons based on multi platform games, even the ones that look and perform exactly the same. Its more logical and accurate to instead draw conclusions from how the 1st party developers react to their respected platforms.

The subject of focus is the PS3 as its architecture is alien to the expertise and experience developers have with the PC/Xbox 360 that are similar. Therefore there will never be a day where ports can be developed on e.g. a PC and then just release it on the 360 and also PS3. The latter requires individual attention.

Historically the suggestion, for arguments sake, that the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the Xbox was used to justify the heft price tag of the machine. Now the prices are matched, there is no need to point at specific components of the hardware to hail and boast about. So if both cost the same amount, they are meant to atleast perform on the same level. Having said that, there are things the PS3 can do better on the Xbox, and there are things that the Xbox handles better than the PS3.

Companies naturally want to make profits and the install base is an issue. Or shall I say was an issue. Now that the issue of price has been addressed; the install base will grow. And now the lack of software issue is being addressed so there is absolutely no reason as to why anyone would suggest the installbase of the PS3 will not grow to the point that developers and publishers can't make a profit. By the end of the year, Sony will have atleast 6-7million consoles and that figure for its year is more than reasonable to heed the anxiety that some accountants may be having.

On a personal note; I think comparisons between the consoles is less relevant now because of the prices are matched. Some of the PlayStation 3 owners will believe their system is better and vice versa; that is why they own that console. You, or I, or anyone here will not convince them that their $399 investment is a waste of money and that should pay another $399 for a console and restart their game collection. That just won't happen.

So apply to their intelligence and common sense and cut the BS. If you disagree I'd like your point of view

Sincerely, Meus

Bloodmask3368d ago

How is my comment SPAM?? It is clearly related to the article. And typical to people of your nature to resort to a personal attack. What does your comment have to do with the article?? If anything your comment is SPAM, offensive, and also off topic, which I will report.

wageslave3368d ago

@meus.

You are the most delusional PS3 fan on this site. Unlike the others who froth at the mouth, you can at least string a sentence together. This talent has enabled to string along the SDF Useful Idiot minions.

But some of us are paying attention, and not so easily fooled.

These things come to mind from your post:

"360 and also PS3. The latter requires individual attention."
Yes, additional expense to achieve equal performance. Less expense results in an inferior game, as you see in dozens of titles this year.

"Now the prices are matched"
Not that it honestly matters (IMHO), but no, they are not "priced matched". The Xbox 360 still costs less than the PS3.

"there are things the PS3 can do better on the Xbox, and there are things that the Xbox handles better than the PS3."
Agreed. PS3 plays BR. Xbox 360 is a better game machine.

"Or shall I say was an issue."
The XBox 360 has outsold the PS3 since the release of the PS3. In addition, the Xbox 360 wasnt late to market as the PS3 was, and consequently has an install-base lead.

"the install base will grow."
It will grow, but so will Xbox 360's base. And, there is no reason -- OUTSIDE OF MEUSLANDIA -- to think that the Xbox 360 wont _continue_ to _outsell_ the PS3.

"PS3 will not grow to the point that developers and publishers can't make a profit."
That is smaller than the profit they could make on Xbox 360. For two reasons; A) the Xbox 360 has a larger base (and it is extending the install-base-gap) and B) Xbox 360 users buy more games per console per year ("attach rate) than PS3 users... I dont know why (BR only users? younger, less disposable income? more "2nd console" users (who are buying Xbox 360's superior multi-plat titles?))

"By the end of the year, Sony will have atleast 6-7million consoles"
Perhaps. But they have less than 5.5 now, they'd better have a great Xmass. But, its really not the point. During the holiday, the sales trend is *very* likely to continue. Yes, PS3 will sell. But the Xbox 360 is certain to sell more -- the question is, "how much more".

Meus, you cannot deny past performance being an indicator of future expectations. The PS3 still costs more, still has inferior games (sorry, no doubt about it, see Metacritic), has inferior "extra" offerings (LIVE Messenger, XBLA, WMC, LIVE, Guide Features) its bigger, sorta-fugly (matters to The Consumer(TM)), and is already far far out front in mindshare and marketshare.

Wishful thinking as permeated your post and replaced good reason.

Meus Renaissance3368d ago (Edited 3368d ago )

I was not comparing the sales figures between the Xbox and the PS3. Here are some of your comments that I'd like to address because I believe you've misunderstood me.

"It will grow, but so will Xbox 360's base. And, there is no reason -- OUTSIDE OF MEUSLANDIA -- to think that the Xbox 360 wont _continue_ to _outsell_ the PS3."

How well the PS3 or Xbox sales is not indictive of how the other is selling. Both consoles can sell very well, the point is that 3rd party developers will not shun away from the PS3 or consider it lesser because it has a small installbase. In comparison to the 360, it does have a smaller fanbase however on its own - 6 to 7 million customers is alot to a publisher. This would mean they'd also continue their support for both platforms. They could make money on both platforms, instead of just the Xbox 360 with its high userbase at the moment.

"Yes, additional expense to achieve equal performance. Less expense results in an inferior game, as you see in dozens of titles this year."

The additional expense is a natural result for the fact that developers need to give the platform individual attention. Much of this money goes to research and development and therefore is only temporarily; we'll see those costs go down significantly over the next few months and years.

"Not that it honestly matters (IMHO), but no, they are not "priced matched". The Xbox 360 still costs less than the PS3.

Well technically you are right. But the highest spec 360, which I'd personally would get, is the Elite and it costs more than the 40Gig. The Elite lacks WiFi but you can buy that for an additional $100, and it lacks Blu-Ray which is not related to gaming but it's still something someone would rather have than not in their package. It's practically a free Blu-Ray player on top. The 360 lacks that. And the Premium is $50 cheaper than the 40GB PS3 yet has half the HDD and has the Elite's lackings aswell. The PS3, for $50 more, offers a much greater value that no one can deny. If it was launched at that price last year, then there'd be no such comparisons between owners or criticism towards Sony's high price tag.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3368d ago
Show all comments (54)
The story is too old to be commented.