OXM UK: "But current gen consoles in general are "mature and stabilised".
after 5 years we're still getting this? aren't they embarrassed to make these statement yet?
If it's still true, why not say it? I'd argue that discussing this stuff now is vital if developers are to get what they want from next gen consoles.
Agreed. The general agreement seems to be that the Xbox 360 is the easier console to develope for, which is why it's the lead developement console for most titles. So it's logical to assume that Microsoft have done something right, something which other console manafacturers can learn from for the next generation.
yeah, but not now. earlier on (maybe the first 2 to 3 years) yes, but devs really can't keep falling on this argument... not after what we've seen done on the PS3 and the other multiplat devs out there that don't seem to have a problem. it's almost as if that very statement is what's holding them back: 'we don't have to make an effort because all we have to say is the PS3 is hard to program for and everyone will agree' and so they just sit on their lazy arses and chug out endless minor updates to struggling engines... do you agree Bethesda?
most devs managing fine on ps3 now doesnt change the fact that it's still easier on 360 . They caught up on ps3 , but it's still easier
Well after 5 years the Playstation 3 is still getting weaker versions. Skyrim is one example. We all know the Playstation 3 is more advanced, as it should be since it costs more to manufacture and also came out a year after the XBOX 360. However that means very little if developers need to spend extra time on the hardware. If the Playstation 3 was setting the world on fire, with hardware sales much like what happened with the Playstation 2 last generation, then it would have been the lead platform again.
@GribbleGrunger ***and so they just sit on their lazy arses and chug out endless minor updates to struggling engines... do you agree Bethesda?*** If you know anything about game development, you would know they aren't "lazy". By software industry standards game developers get worked the most and tend to burn out far more than business software. ***yeah, but not now. earlier on (maybe the first 2 to 3 years) yes, but devs really can't keep falling on this argument...*** because you know the platform better doesn't mean the issues don't remain. @LevelHead ***We all know the Playstation 3 is more advanced, as it should be since it costs more to manufacture and also came out a year after the XBOX 360.*** This is a case of more advanced in the wrong places! The PS3 if balanced, would have been an excellent performer. Instead, Sony did multiple crucial mistakes so instead you paid extra for essentially wasted resources. An example is, what use is super fast video RAM, when the bottleneck isn't the speed, but the quantity?
Argh! Are any of you developers? Have any of you developed for both the PS3 and Xbox360? No? Then you plain and simply do not know what you're talking about if you say that developers are lame for using this excuse. How so? Believe it or not, there are numerous fields of studies in programing and programing for the PS3 is only ONE of them. BTW, I'm not a developer, either. However, when someone who has an expertise in said field, I, like many of you should, have a tendency to assume that they know what they're talking about. [EDIT] @LevelHead, When concerning many types of technology, 'more advanced' typically means easier to work with than its predecessors.
Smart move by MS. Listening to developers when designing the 360 has really turned into a strenth of the platform. This isn't new news either. It has been known throughout this genneration that the 360 handles multiplats better than the PS3. Even 5-6 years later you have games that perform better on 360. Skyrim and BF3 are just two of the newest examples. All this gives people a reason to like the 360 over the PS3 Why be afraid to talk about it, it's just the truth.
Funny how the best looking games exclusive are on the PS3 then huh? Sure you are well aware of the titles. Why is it the PS3 gets Game of the Year games too. If one happens to be on the XBox. That means the game is a multi platform. When a Dev say's easier. They mean one of two things. One, lazy and want plug in play code. Two, over their head in skill. Something PS3 dev's have no issue with ever since MGS4.
@Gribble Of course they still say it now, not everybody has got the chance to suffer through developing for the PS3 and know it as much as other devs have. What other games on the PS3 have these devs worked on? Even if a developer spends years working on the PS3, it doesn't change the fact that the 360 is still easier to develop for. I see no reason for them to be embarrassed in stating their experiences. @Black It takes "skill" to develop for a much harder hardware? Developers are lazy for struggling to deal with unnecessarily difficult hardware? Really? As far as I know, the game has been working fine on both consoles It's a little silly to think that developers who are focused on making multiplatforms are supposed to be able to know the PS3 in and out like exclusive developers who work on nothing BUT the PS3. Sony pushes their first party hard to make sure they understand the PS3, but that doesn't mean it's not a pain to develop for or that if they jumped ship they would find the 360 easier to develop for. I can care less about "superior graphics" when most games this gen suffer from long dev cycles and lack of gameplay content. The shiniest of PS3 games are linear, corridor setpiece games-- amazing games, but some people act as if the PS3 can pull of Battlefield 3 with 64 players. Games like Kingdom of Amalur that have bigger worlds and more content are just as good as the best looking exclusives, it's too bad graphics has to be such a focus for some. MS, from the start, has done a great job in making their product easy to develop for, it's something Sony needs to learn from. I'm tired of people passing blame to the developers all the time and accusing them of being lazy or stupid, or as if they are somehow supposed to find the PS3 easier to develop for than the 360 one day.
Even if there are developers out there now that are good at developing games on the PS3, that does not mean it is easy. It just means that those developers are good at a difficult task. Wasn't it Naughty Dog that came out and said they DONT want another Playstation to come out because it took them so long to get used to the PS3? They're a first party developer for Sony and they are on record saying they dont want another Playstation yet? What more proof do you need? Found the story btw: http://ps3.ign.com/articles...
"something which other console manafacturers can learn from for the next generation. " It's not about choice/decisions/learning, it's about technical possibilities and partnerships in business. ms had ATI chips which had just gone unified, for sony: nvidia chips hadn't gone unified yet so to get the extra graphcal performance lots of processing is offloaded to the cell cores. Next gen I could make a calculated guess that all consoles will likely be easy to develop for, as a given.
The PS3 is hard to program for than an Atari 2600 as well. The results are still the same with PS3 having the best games, with the best graphics sound and gameplay :D
Late to the party bros! It's been like that since the beginning of this Gen :P
@ gamingdroid: with myself having worked in the games industry for a little more than 3 years - devs are, in fact, really lazy. the argument that the PS3 is "harder" to develop for simply does not hold any water anymore. after nearly 6 years, they should have a pretty good grasp on how to develop for the PS3 (and that's not even including the time devs had access to the PS3 prior to the release of the system!). there's no doubt that it's not the same architecture as the X360, but that doesn't mean it's *harder*, it's just *different*. if devs keep whining about how "hard" it is to develop for the PS3, then maybe they should either go back to school and learn a new career or get better at their job.
No one is saying that better games arent made because the PS3 is harder to develop for, they are just saying that since the 360 is basically like a PC hardware-wise, its easier to make games for and next gen consoles should keep it in mind.
@Brosy - Wrong, Skyrim runs like shit on both platforms. BF3 on PS3 is also the better of the two, get your facts right before diarrhoea mouthing.
no it does not 100% true. i remember dice devs saying that developers troubled developing on ps3 is just because their code is too 360 oriented. developing both from the very beginning concurrently will solve the problem. but 'small' or 'lazy' dev wouldn't care that much on ps3 because ps3 'would sold less'. besides, its 2012, there are dozens if not hundreds of papers on the internet helping this problem.
In other news, the SNES is significantly easier to develop for than the Wii U. While developers are trying to say something good about the 360, they're actually just dissing its hardware power. They're pretty much admitting the 360 has weaker hardware.
Nice spin. The PC is the most powerful platform and also far easier to develop for. So.... By your logic is Sony must be dissing their own Vita hardware by saying its easy to develop for? Right? Think first...
Actually, all SNES games were programmed in assembler language. I would MUCH rather develop a Wii U game (C++) than a SNES game. Take a look at the source code for a simple Tic-Tac-Toe game for SNES: http://wiki.superfamicom.or...
@ Fishy Fingers Of course it's a spin by dedicatedtogamers, just look through his post history. How he came up with that username is beyond me. After reading his comments one would think his username would be dedicatedtobeingafanboy. Sony is actually starting to listen as Vita is a well designed system that is much more developer friendly. I would assume the PS4 will also cater to developers much more than the PS2 and PS3 did. @WitWolfy That's not entirely true. The Playstation 3 hardware has its RAM split as well which further complicates things. The bluray drive is also a slower drive so read speeds will have an affect too. This is why so many games on the Playstation 3 require mandatory installs.
Only reason Xbox 360 is easier to develop on is because it runs on Power PC hardware. The same hardware a everyday computer exists of.... I rest my case
@WitWolfy ***Only reason Xbox 360 is easier to develop on is because it runs on Power PC hardware. The same hardware a everyday computer exists of.... *** If you know anything about the history of the Xbox (and subsequently the Xbox 360), you would know that the console was designed to be easy to develop for. MS constantly touted prior the 360's release how content is to be the center and that they didn't want developers to hamper their development by dealing with technical details. Xbox dev tools are practically universally praised, and MS approach has fundamentally changed the industry. Even Sony now admits and aspire to making the PS Vita the easiest to develop for.
@WitWolfy WRONG. Everyday computers use Intel (and Intel compatible) processors. Power PC chip in the Xbox is pretty much the same as the main processor in PS3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... The difficultly of the PS3 comes from the SPUs design. It's made to take very specific kinds of small data packets, arranged in a very certain way, and do very certain calculations on it. http://www.insomniacgames.c...
Well said, Fishy Fingers. Bubbles+!
Embarrassing is someone without any development knowledge calling an actual game developer "lazy" so they can try and save their little box of plastic/silicone some face. Move on, the PS3 is more difficult to develop for, even Sony admitted it, it doesnt need defending anymore...
'save there little box of plastic'? you know, sometimes people say things because they want to, not just to defend something. it IS embarrassing and IMO it is lazy to say this now. it's got nothing to do with the fact it's a Sony machine. not everyone on here is twelve you know
Then that my friend, just makes you ingorant. As your knowledge in said field is? Nothing? But hey, your probably right, the dudes making the games are the lazy ones, the dudes sat at home moaning over the interent, we're the real go getters right? LOL... Eventually, you talk enough BS, you begin to believe it.
PC more easy to develop for? news to me you do realise the vast amount of configurations makes PC an absolute pain to develop for? Hence is awful optimisation for every PC multi-plat realsed this gen? even your precious guru john Carmack said that
Your talking optimising your software, I'm just talking about up and running, pure ease of running said software. And in all honesty, if that is the one point of mine you've been able to question, I've not really done that bad have I because its rather irrelevant anyway as we're actually talking console vs. console. It was just a simple way to show there is NO correlation between raw power and development difficulty. Or that unfamiliar hardware architectures make you "lazy", basically the usual PS3 N4G shout.
I think there is a big difference between "difficult" and "different." If you look at the devs, first and third party, who have made amazing games (multiplat or not) on the PS3, they don't talk about the PS3 being difficult to develop for or at least not anymore. The 360 was designed to be familiar for devs. Power PC configurations and programming, stuff they've done for years already. But when that technology was new, it was also "difficult" for them too. All new or different tech will be hard the first time you try it, especially in comparison to stuff you already know and are used to. The PS3 isn't hard to develop for, it's just different. If you haven't made a game on the PS3 yet, it will seem like a daunting task. But talk to the devs who've made incredible experiences on the console and learn from their experience with it. They don't talk about the PS3 being difficult anymore because they've passed the hurdles and have become used to it. Just like they had the time to get used to the programming that's behind the 360's platform since they've been using it for years.
You go through the history of the past 5-6 years and you can find anywhere on the internet that multiplication developers have issues programming for the PS3 vs the 360. Maybe it has become easier over time but it is proven when developing for both consoles that the 360 is easier and thus cheaper to develop for. Now in the case of Sony's First Party Studios then yes they can say the PS3 is easy to program for because that is the only platform they have to make games for. Therefore they have no reason to compare. Besides it's not in there best interest to make Soy look inferior to Microsoft in any way... Spin it however you want but in this case different=difficult.
"The PS3 isn't hard to develop for, it's just different." Each SPU in the Cell requires its own compiler and debug unit. The 360 dev kit has one compiler that automatically splits up tasks among the 3 cores of the Xenon CPU. Basically, it takes 6 times more work to get game code running on the PS3 as it does on 360.
Some facts don't change just because it is now 5 years later. Even if they've come up with ways to get the best out of the ps3, it doesn't change the fact that they don't have to jump through as many hoops to get the same out of the 360
It's just a matter of the right knowledge. That' why we see such great results according to exclusives on PS3.
I agree with Gribble. Why dont we hear top notch game makers like Naughty Dog make excuses? Why are they able to make high quality games along with Gorilla games and other non 1st party devs? You usually see these articles appear when a game a maker has subpar reviews for a game that was hyped (xbox website). A hack n slash watered down RPG with cartoony nintendo wii GFX shouldn't have been that hard for these professional game makers compared to what has been pulled off for the past freaking 5 years.
Amalur has 35 positive reviews and 4 mixed. Zero negative. You've just destroyed your own argument.
Sony owns ND and GG, you really think they are going to talk bad about the Sony hardware? We've heard enough to know that Sony's hardware is notoriously difficult for developers, calling them lazy or ignorant and then praising Sony-owned developers who are paid to utilize only the PS3 doesn't change the facts. There's more bias in accepting what Sony developers say than 3rd party developers-- nor have I heard Sony developers say that working on the PS3 is a piece of cake
@Alpha: Your entire comment is massively flawed. For one, if even the Sony execs themselves have come out and discussed the potential difficulties of their own hardware, what would be stopping 1st party devs from doing it? And for 2, your "paid to use only PS3 hardware" assumes that that's the only kind of programming said devs know how to use. You understand that all game programming starts off the same and then is optimized for the platform it's going to be on right? That means that ND and GG likely know how to make games for the 360, so why wouldn't they be able to say which is easier and which is not? Talk to Insomniac, whom have only just now become multiplat devs, and tell them they don't know any better since they've only programmed for the PS3. Seriously.
The 360 is definitely easier to develop on...No doubt Its still strange that the harder console to develop on has still yielded more technically advanced games but that could be down to their model of building dev studios and cultivating them. Ive said many times that ND, Santa Monica, QD or whoever would do great things on the 360s hardware. Lets hope BOTH consoles can achieve BOTH parameters next gen.
Alpha makes the most sense on this site. Always have great posts man.
@Dragon 1) I dont understand what you mean, nothing is stopping Sony devs from doing it, but it doesn't change the fact that they are given Sony-funded opportunities to make the best of their games 2) It doesn't matter if that's not the only hardware they developed for, I was saying that Sony developers are going to praise MS for any reason or plainly speak like multiplat developers do who are working on both consoles
A true statement in relation to what they do, remains a true statement. If there are 2 paths to the destination, one with obsticles while the other one has no obsticles, over time they've figured out ways to overcome these obsticles. However, the path with no obsticles still remains easier by default. Therefore, their statement is true.
I know right. Hey 07 called and wants its headline back.
Wtf is this? 2007?
I dont think people who have never coded a thing in their life should comment.
sony learn next time with ps4. that way you wont have inferior products such as skyrim.
"Our team were coming from a PC background, we had Settlers of Cataan on Xbox Live Arcade but that's it, that's the only previous console experience we had. Going to Sony platforms was a little bit tricky, Xbox was significantly easier, but across the board it was really nice going to platforms that were mature and stabilised." I pretty much think they are saying it was easier because they had experience with PC/Xbox prior to developing Amalur. I would think that is to be expected.
anyone else misread that as 'Amateur dev' ? :) this type of headline just incites defensiveness and attacks. the developer is just discussing the development of their game. He mentions they have a PC background, so of course the xbox will be more familiar to them. That is just one comment that was taken out of an informative article. In context, there is no 'xbox vs ps3' tone. we all know the ps3 has taken long for devs to get to grips with, but now an experienced ps3 dev might say that the ps3 is easier for them due to more familiarity with the architecture and now mature dev tools. but to get into the debate, a lot of code will generally run faster on an xbox. On the ps3, optimising the code to make efficient use of the SPU's instead of just the RSX GPU is required. This is not always easy. Look at the technological leap between uncharted 1 and uncharted 2/3.
"after 5 years we're still getting this? aren't they embarrassed to make these statement yet?" yes, they should be embarrassed.
I'll co-sign with you bud. ...who doesn't know this already? Any one this website knows it's harder to program for the PS3 since day one. Someone below commented below that Microsoft did something right... Why in the world would they change the programming of XBox so it couldn't be a simple port to the PC? It only makes sense.
the difference between a PS3 and 360 dev is like the difference between an apprentice and a master carpenter. One needs the right tools to do his job while the latter can make his own tools to get the job done. There's an old saying, "a poor craftsman always blames his tools".
Who cares?? I still get to play the same game on my ps3 regardless of if it was difficult to develop for or not.
I love when people comment with "WHO CARES". Well obviously you did. You took the time to comment. You didn't add anything to the debate on this website other than to come off as insecure because your platform of choice was cast in a negative light in this article. Oh and for the record I get to enjoy the same games on my PS3 as you do. Difference is I can live with the fact that 3rd Party developers prefer to program for the 360 because it is easier and thus cheaper and less time consuming than developing on the PS3.
I dont think you got what I meant. "I can live with the fact that 3rd Party developers prefer to program for the 360 because it is easier and thus cheaper and less time consuming than developing on the PS3." Why should we care if it is hard to develop for, it is there job at the end of the day. I am a physicist and I face problems with programming and hardware design all the time, I dont complain and moan because it is my job.
You say why would you care and I say then why bother reading or commenting? Read your comments again. You keep saying that you don't care and yet you commented on this article and then responded to my comment. So you do care. But you care for the wrong reasons. You are in here defending Sony like you were a shareholder in their company but doing it in a less abrasive way than most of the Sony faithful on this site. Go ahead and downplay what this developer said. They gave an informed opinion which is more than either you or I have done on this topic...
This is the oldest lamest story that developer after developer uses. We know the PS3 sucks to code for. Get over it.
You are working for EA so shut up and be professional about it.
EA are one of the few 3rd party studios who actually know how to work with PS3 hardware compared to other crappy 3rd party companies we know.. What do you think Activision???
I'll definitely agree with that. That Syndicate demo runs & looks as good as Killzone 3, very impressive work from the PS3 development team.
Old news. We all knew this 5 years ago. The reason its easier is because it has the architecture of a PC... move along now, just lazy developers :)
Where's your PS3 game that you developed with ease and unlaziness?
Actually no its the smaller ram and more difficult cell proccessor that makes it harder to develop for.
It's the unbalanced system and the weird computational design. The Xbox 360 has full 3-cores, capable of executing 6 threads. The PS3 Cell has 7 SPE (as one is disabled for better yield), but each are very limited in memory. This means, you have to ensure your task is split up and will fit within the constraints. This is not only very hard to do, but sometimes impossible without significant degradation in performance. It's like trying to split up a big task for smaller limited teams and ask them to minimally communicate with each other because that will prevent other teams from talking to each other. It doesn't take a genius to figure that this will quickly bottleneck. Good design means all parts of the system are as much used as possible at all times....
@gamingdroid Your analysis is familiar, although incorrect. Lots of devs go there, because they don't want to rework their engine, or their ideas of how an engine should work, to use a job system. You shouldn't spew your opinion like it's fact, because its not. Check out some of Naughty Dog's GDC talks on how they utilized the PS3. The 360 is perfectly capable of "emulating" the job-style engine, although the Xenon is nowhere near as powerful as the Cell, in this regard.
@Ulf: What about my statements are incorrect? Please be specific as I don't like vague answers. ***The 360 is perfectly capable of "emulating" the job-style engine, although the Xenon is nowhere near as powerful as the Cell, in this regard.*** Well, duh! Emulation will never go faster than native (or natural if you may), because you are adding a layer to "emulate"....
they could spend all the time, money and effort in the world on it, doesnt change the fact that its harder to develop for, its more work either way. remove your blinders dude, just becuase somebody criticizes the ps3 doesn't mean their lazy, it could once in a while just be fact, esp since this seems to be a unanimous criticism of the ps3
Man, I just read Anna Nicole Smith died.