According to the Ubisoft development team working on Rainbow Six: Vegas, there may be not only be no increase in quality in the game when ported to the PlayStation 3 but we might actually see a drop in quality.
unless it's b/c a game was developed in 1080P for them and only 720P for us, b/c the Xbox 360 does have more available system memory to be used how it's best needed and more readily available and easier to work with, thus the cell isn't going to look as good when using like terms, ex. both in 1080P. Sorry sony fans, it's the truth but your system will still look ok, so it's alright. Having fun is the true name of the game. Besides, ps3 will have other features added to other games as time matures the system and becomes more comfortable with developers. ubisoft is showing the truth in today's next gen.gaming and it's all good really for everyone but especially for the Xbox 360 and MS. It seems more and more developers after having worked with both systems are saying this, unless sony paid not to.
i love Ubisoft
both consoles will have outstanding games, graphically and playability wise, if you can afford both, great, if not, either one will be just as entertaining. Competition is good for the consumer.
So the developers are being lazy and trying to copy and paste the 360's strengths over the PS3. This is utter garbage for a developer to not take advangtage of the strengths of both systems. I would also like to say that its distastesful for one developer to take shots at other consoles. There job is not to critize, but to use there best efforts and develop to that consoles strength. I've seen video of Call of Duty for both consoles and they look nearly idenical. Whatever the Edge is posting is sounding like total rubbish. There is no excuse for taking shots at another console and not putting your best effort into creating the best game you can develop for that system. These kind of statements don't sound like the statements a professional company would make, so for right now I'm looking for a direct link to this. That's my 2 cents.
agreed. furthermore, to say that the PS3 is inferior to the 360, after admitting that the PS3's version of the same game is a port (instead of being built from the ground up to take advantages of its capabilities) is a bit far-fetched and biased, especially when the developer pretty much conceded to not taking advantage of the PS3's hardware. to pour a little bit more sauce of untruth on this whole thing, the article refers to the misconceived statement that Assassins Creed's AI is better on the 360 than the PS3. Ubisoft cleared that up a week or two ago with "While the method for distributing AI load is different on each platform, the AI code itself is the same. Players will experience the exact same crowd results on PS3 and Xbox360."
If you guys are willing to front the bill to have Ubi start from scratch to get the ideal PS3 version, I'm sure they'd do it. If not, than you must realize you're morons...devs are a company, and the PS3 is a spendy platform to develop for. The Cell is nice, but because of the difficulty, time, and money it takes to program for it, you're dumb enough to blame the devs. You should be pissed at Sony for using the Cell (again, it's a nice chip, it's just not made for games)
4.2 what are you talking about footing the bill? Ubisoft could just as easily develop for the PS3 and port to the 360. its not my fault that i demand the best for the money i choose to spend. it's not my fault that Ubisoft would rather take a self-admitted easier road to producing their games, and subsequently deprive their unbiased fanbase the epitome of quality that they can conceivably achieve. how many multi-platform XBox games were graphically lacking because developers preferred developing for the PS2 and porting to the XBox instead of the other way around? and i'm supposed to be pissed at Sony for making a complex, demanding, superior technology? yeah, thats the kinda thinking that's hampered this industry for the past 20 years. 4.1 you're comment doesn't even merit a reply. besides, don't you have school in the morning, or something?
is it that it may be true? 0r are developers lazy? Sony fans will say lazy while 360 fans will laugh. This is all great news to 360 fanboys. In my opinion i dont think Ubisoft likes Sony anymore (SplinterCell 5). They seem to develope for the 360 and port to PS3 for the extra cash. its all very funny.
"I wonder why Ubi keeps saying this stuff?" when have they said anything like this before?
Maybe about a week ago it was said that AC had better AI than the PS3 version. Sure another article states differently but its interesting to say the least. I of course beleive they will end up being the same but you cannot deny the fact that Ubi seems to be favoring Microsoft.
"another" article didn't state differently. it was the same article, which initially misconstrued Ubisoft's words. here's the original article: http://ps3.ign.com/articles... and here's the updated one: http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... in any event Ubisoft's preference for the 360 is irrelent to the argument for or against the notion that the 360 is superior to or inferior to the PS3. if any thing it just says that Ubisoft would rather take the easier way out, by developing for the system that many developers say is both easier, and yet inferior.
Sony has always had EA do more for them (took us forever to get them to support Live) M$ has UBI...i will take UBI over EA any day.
Its a opinion from a journalist. Not really from Ubisoft. The journalist got to see both versions and they noticed the x360 version looked better. No surprise since Ubisoft has made quite a few games to for xbox 360 so they know how it runs.
They just admitted that they're not taking advantage of the PS3's capabilities, which is a bit worrisome. This comment also made me go "what the hell?" -"we’re developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3 means that there’s less memory available for us to use"- Last time I checked, both systems had 512 Mb of ram, and Cell has 2.5 times the amount of on-chip memory as Xenon. And I won't even get into the whole XDR RAM thing. It goes completely against the interview with Visual Concepts, who specifically stated that the PS3 not only gives them more processing power for things like AI, but renders better than the 360. Then again they pushed each console to its limits instead of porting from one system to the other and hoping that everything goes well.
the ps3 has 256 mb system ram and 256 mb gpu ram... while the xbox360 has the same, it is unified ram, meaning that at any given time the gpu could use all or none of the ram. So when you port.. if in some instances you use 400 mb ram for gpu you'd have to downscale the texture resolutions for the ps3
The RSX GPU can read textures from XDR memory as well, and it's nearly as fast as reading from GDDR3 memory (20GB/s vs 22GB/s). The other solution that PS3 devs have is to render elements of the scenes in Cell and composite them with rendered elements from the RSX.
Do you think software/gaming designers like UBI or EA and others don't know the real and I mean real strenghts and weakness of the ps3? Of course they do and the comment on XDR memory is about 90% false, don't live in make believe, it's 256 available readily and that's greatly underpowered, thus the scalled down textures, AI etc...It's being semi covered up for now as many don't want to admit it's not so powerful after all but it is less adept at gaming, but still well w/in an acceptable range for some fun game play.
Here is an excert from gamspot, who had the privilage to play all three versions. The main article is already posted on the PS3 New thread. "It's worth noting that the 360 and PS3 versions are identical in terms of content; the only difference we noticed is that you can thrust with the sixaxis controller on the PS3 to make your character do his melee attack (though you can still use the button if you want). The games looked quite similar, too, from what we could tell. The level of detail in the maps and characters has been noticeably ramped up from Call of Duty 2, such as with the aforementioned individual grass blades and rays of light filtering through the trees. The characters' facial expressions, clothing, and animations are also appreciably more realistic than in the past. You'd be hard pressed to say which version looks better, especially since they're both running in 720p resolution, but neither one is a slouch in the visual department." This guy is just spewing garbage, like I thought.
This is a review from COD3 not Ubisofts Vegas
The Xbox 360 is truly a full gaming machine.
So tell me Sony fanboys, why is this news bogus? Just look at the quote, not the journalism fluff. If ubisoft wants to develop games this way that's up to them.
the reason people are saying that this news is bogus is that its dependent upon Ubisoft, who itself is bogus for not taking advantage of both (BOTH) consoles. its like they'd prefer to make their games for the 360, then cripple them by porting them to the PS3; which, like i said above, is in a sense depriving gamers of the true quality that they can achieve. if the PS3 is capable of more, then it would stand to reason that they'd develop for the superior system, then port; not vice versa. this was the ideology that plagued the original XBox. in a sense the article is admitting to not appreciating the PS3's capabilities, while at the same time it's trying to coat that admission with the notion that the 360's version is inherently better. Sony fanboys have read between the lines and called it as bogus, while Microsoft fanboys have fell for the guise and say its true. Virtua Tennis is superior on the PS3 for no less a reason than this developer is saying that Rainbow Six will be superior on the 360. or, it could ultimately be a thing to where Ubisoft is in Microsoft's pocket, much like anti-Sony fanboys say that Konami, Sega, so on and so forth are in Sony's pockets.
Wait a second, just because a big wig developer determines to build their game on the far easier and farmiliar based console doesn't make them a bad company. That's business, and to make more profit you HAVE to step on people's toes every once and a while. I don't see the big deal either way your still going to get the same game(multiplayer excluded) with the very close graphics. It's hardly bogus, it can be upsetting to people who thought all developers were going to sacrifice double the resources to pump out a PS3 game. And I would definately believe that other developers are following suit just because of the ease of developing on the 360, and porting it. Although I think most developers will shoot to make the PS3's version the same or close to.
Remember how when the whole "Virtua Tennis looks better on ps3" story came out, all 360 fans agreed that it was due to the developers not fully utilizing the 360 hardware? Isn't it obvious that that's also the case now except the ps3 isn't being utilized properly? Come on people, this arguing is stupid.
This one is about RSLV. Dont worry about it guys. Soon we will have them side by side and reveiws will be out.
Somebody smart enough, please explain me why companies like Sega said their games looks better on PS3. Gamespot said that both COD3 are graphically identical. Visual Concepts said their NBA 2K7 looks better on the PS3, and they gave reasons. Even Bethseda is porting Oblivion and it looks a little, nearly unnoticeable, better than the 360 version. To me Oblibion is a graphically difficult game to port if you dont have enough memory RAM. So here comes UBI again, a company that I respected. Saying that Rainbow Six, a game Im not interested in cause I like SCell DA much, may looks worse on the PS3 thanks to limited memory. Come on blind fanatics. Its only Ubi until now that talking SH!T about their PS3 ports. And thats what they are 360 games badly ported to PS3. LOL!!. I will see this november then I will have enough reasons for judgement.
No way, oblivion slightly looks better than the 360's version. This in no way could be related to the fact of it releasing 6 MONTHS after the 360's.
PS3 doesn't have enough memory for games when they're focused on 360's tech, thats why PS3 games are dull and gritty looking with limited color(POOR DEPTH AND RICHNESS). DEVS that develope AAA's for the PS3 will do that(PS) paste and play with the enviroments(PAINTED WALLS WITH TRAILS AND SOME TRESS AND GRASS ON THE SIDE OF THE TRAIL)AC probly had better AI but fans would be upset so they had to be fair. NBA 2K7 has some extra time for developement plus that dull poor color memory problem happen to work out on the PS3 (EARTH TONE) when it comes NBA 2K7. Less RAM, Sloppy code will give the PS3 some trouble trying to prove it's worth when Dev's learn how to use the the Multi threading of the 360 ect.
we’re developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3 means that there’s less memory available for us to use, but we’re trying to minimise any drop in quality”..Such comments sugget that the gap in performance between Playstation3 and Xbox 360 is nowhere near as powerful as some would like us to believe and that the console may even be less able than Microsoft’s…” DJ and others continue to lie and say that the ps3 can allocate all of its ram for textures. Its just not true. Only 256 is for graphics. Thats why the developers of Prey said they couldn't make it for the ps3. Not enough memory. Now Ubi's dev team is saying the same thing. Its not a misconcpetion. What is a misconception is that the ps3 can use all its ram for graphics. It simply can't. The cell and its spe's use the other 256 ram. Once again, something I have been saying all along, proven TRUE. But sony fans in denial will say ubi soft sucks. The ps3 is not optimal for games. Sure a dev that wants to invest 3x's as much money and 3x's as much time, in the ps3, can get great games out of it. But ps3 games will never look as good as 360 games in the end. Not enough ram for textures. But it don't mean the ps3 won't be good folks. It just means that not only will there be much more 360's on the market, there will be much GREAT games as well. Thanks Micrrosoft. Here is a link confirming what Ubi soft said about memory/ram. http://arstechnica.com/arti... ASTAROTH.....I have seen the video for nba 2k7 from the ps3 ign article. They obviously haven't spent much time with the 360 version. And for some reason the guys at ign play games in 720p. I have played NBA 2k7 in 1080i and it looks much much better than in 720p. And it also looks better than the video I saw for the ps3. As far as companies spending a little more time to ad some special things for the ps3. Thats cool. But , they have to. Fighting for sales on the measily 500k fan base for the ps3 is going to be ruff for those companies that invested all that money in deving for the ps3. ha ha ha ha.... They have to hype the games up and garner some interest...but when the reviews come out and the head to head comparissons come out. You will see that the 360 for the most part out shines the ps3. Watch. I ain't been wrong yet. Its all common sense really. Put your fanboyish hopes aside and use your brains folks.
This brings up an interesting thought I had earlier, in that there's a common attack on PS3 in regards to programming. (R:FoM has lazy programmers because of file size, as you said with Virtua Tennis, NBA 2K7 had more time, etc.) Yet, whenever there's something superior about a 360 title, it goes in the direction of "See! I told you the PS3 couldn't handle ::insert excuse here::" Case in point: AC supposedly has better A.I. on the 360(I know this rumor was squashed, just using the responses as an example), and all of a sudden, the 360 has better threading capabilities than the PS3. Most recent example: this whole Rainbow Six ordeal. This one in particular is especially ridiculous for 360 fans to use as an attack AND for PS3 fans to go about disputing, because the said it themselves, it's a port of the 360 game. There it is, in plain black and white. How often will ANYTHING optimized for a particular platform run perfectly on different hardware? It's the same as how Resistance might be different in some aspects were it ported to 360, it is simply not designed to take advantage of that systems strengths, plain and simple. I remember reading somewhere(don't remember where exactly), that it may be beneficial for seperate dev teams to work on the same game so as to minimize the effects of certain aspects being "lost in translation", if you will, in regards to ports. A sound idea if you ask me, may up costs, but that's besides the point. I completely agree with you though kmis, arguing about this one is pretty much pointless.
LOL PS3, second-rate next-gen!
Well said. I vote to let you speak. You deserve 6 bubbles buddy. What happened?
thankyou i appreciate it! i don't know what happened to my bubbles actually... i definately called jin an a$$hole after he called me one for no apparent reason, but taking two or three bubbles from me for that seems a little excessive! oh well, maybe one day they will give my bubbles back....
The 360 is cheaper to develope for, Easier to develope for, and has much better developement tools than the ps3. Thats a recipe for success folks. Happy developers make the best games. And their are many developers that have gone on record saying the 360 is superior for games. Sony fans just don't want to accept the TRUTH. Everyone will see soon enough. I haven't been wrong yet. Whats funny is my relative works at EB games and most game companies like MS and Nintendo and Sega when they were around making consoles, would give game stores free units to demo for consumers. Not sony, they are charging 2000 dollars per store to have a demo unit in the game stores. EB games and other companies are upset about it. That rubs them the wrong way. Sony is charging 2000 dollars for every ps3 demo'd. WOW. No company in video game histroy has done that. Every companie looks at giving a demo unit to a store as free advertising. But the sad part is....when people are able to see the 360 and the ps3 side by side.....The truth will be known and Sony will have a hard time justifying a 200 plus dollar difference. I mean, there are bundles now where you can get the 360, extra controller, and a game of your choice for 400 dollars. You can't beat that. For a ps3 with a game and an extra controller, thats over 720 dollars. And if you get the core...which there will ony be 20% core ps3's....then thats over 620 dollars. Over 200 dollars differnce from the premium 360 and over 320 dollar differnce in the core 360 version. WOW. Incredible.
don't forget sony's lack of decision about their online network is pissing off developers too. not being able to implement online features means companies lose money on downloads and micro-transactions for those (PS3) formats and in the end just results in more disappointed gamers.
game from one system to the other,then it won't fully utilize the system.simple as that.if you port oblivion to 360,then it won't fully take advantage of the system from pc.if you port vegas to ps3,it's not being built from the ground up.simple as that.some of you are so stupid it's funny.ubisoft is either getting paid by microsoft(probally is for exclusives)or is going to be bought by microsoft(wouldn't surprise me),or doen't want to spend the money to create an engine for the ps3 to take advantage of it(more than likely).the roaches are now eating the flamebait until the light is turned on for them to scatter.
i wouldnt be suprised if a news of microsoft buying ubisoft come out in the near future...
This is a business people! Ubisoft isn't going to loss money just to make you happy. Developing with the Xbox 360 as the primary console means even development to the PC platform. You put the PC market and combine it with the Xbox 360 market...well you do the math. Why do you think MS is pushing XNA! This gives developers the chance to develop for two platforms at once (MS isn't stupid). So from a developer’s point of view develop one engine for two platforms and port to the other. This is a business and it makes sense.
Yeh maybe MS will buy Ubisoft and EA muahahahhahahahahaha p.s muahahah hah h a
f*ck out of here TopGamer... another paid by pr bulls*t....
Calm down man this news should have been posted under PS3 and 360. Why are you getting ass hurt over games, stop with the personal attacks. Top Gamer is one of the very few on this site that actualy reads and understands what he is saying.
This thread is now listed as 360 and PS3 news now.
Half you guys would not call this crap. Get a life ppl. You guys need to have other things to do in life. Kinda reminds me of xbox and PS2. xbox was more powerfull, and half you sony guys did not care. BTW ubisoft is juat one dev.
Oh no, no, no !!! mostly PS fans here take a cue from 'majority' of the devs and not base their entire focus upon the company that provides the system. 360 fanboys basically do that, see MS failed them last time, the real shame for xbox death was that it was the best equipped out of the 3 consoles but tch! tch!! tch!!!, it did fell off the cliff. Its quite clear that MS didn't make many industry standard titles with it, but such a low equipped PS2 is still kicking competition butt gracefully, even upto 2007 !!! Devs all believe that PS3 will be THE system in 2 or 3 years, its just difficult to program for, yeah and even with its difficulty, its really pushing 360 with over an year of devs experience of it, pretty m,uch at equal status...even at launch HaHaHa. Now if a difficult to program system is bringing equal or better performance than 360...what would it bring when devs actually learn about it ?! please cry with the rest of the 360 creeps, I simply love hearing you wail !!!
Well, for Ubisoft, the team that really loves pc and wishes to bring it up from that sorry 7% market-share that it holds, described the same stuff with Crysis...but now they say its real 'EASY' to port it on consoles. With Fight Night Round 3 having veins in PS3 version, Virtua Tennis having veins exclusively in PS3 version, Oblivion having a more seamless and 3D ranged backdrops, procedural synthesis from the launch lineup, and support of allthe devs that yeah PS3 will be shining brighter than 360, maybe in 2 years or so with more physics and handling...Hah well, this rubbish of a news don't stand a chance...and pathetic 360 fanboys keep saying...mmm now someone other than MS also believes that...HaHaHa ! so desperate !!! Remember, PS2 doesn't have a GPU at all, and it blew both Xbox and PC out of water when it came to making games market standards, both by technical aspects as well as beautiful renderings...yeah, and that on only 4mb video RAM. Cry your eyes out on a sofa cusion would you !
I hope you're right a bout PS3 being the dogs noodles in a couple of years and I also think it will be, but that stuff about ps2 better than XBOX and PC are you NUTTS? yeah they managed to get amazing things from the PS2 no doubt. PC's will always rule we all know, because they can be upgraded with bigger, better, faster GPU's, memory and now physics cards. The down side is obviously PRICE. All truley serious gammers with enough money will play on a PC. Personally I hate them cus the mouse/keyboard controls are [email protected] but thats just me. But to say ps2 is better is utter rubbish.
I suppose I'm a bit of a 360 fanboy, but this doesn't mean I hate Sony or PS3, in fact I'd love one and I'm sure I will have one SOMEDAY. It does make you think though, why would developers say these things if it wasn't at least partically true? I'm am now having doubts has to whether it's worth me spending a small fortune on a PS3 when it may only be slightly better or god forbid worse than what I already have. For my money Sony really need to show the PS3 HANDS DOWN beating the 360. We all know what the 360 can do most of us have been happily play it for the best part of a year. Sony know what they have to beat SO lets see it!
Ubisoft is in PS3`s Ass. But, what do you expect Xbox-360 has so much more to offer.
The 360 will have better looking games simple as that, the lack of memory is going to kill the PS3 in the long run, basically making blu-ray useless for larger textures etc.... Whats the point of all that space when you can't have more than 256mb of RAM at any given time.
"shotty - 08 Oct 2006 19:25 | Let him/her speak Its a opinion from a journalist. Not really from Ubisoft. The journalist got to see both versions and they noticed the x360 version looked better. No surprise since Ubisoft has made quite a few games to for xbox 360 so they know how it runs." Bravo, the first Ms fanboy I met here that makes sense. Ubisoft didn't say 360 is more powerful. They said: "we’re developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3 means that there’s less memory available for us to use, but we’re trying to minimise any drop in quality" and then the journalist wrongfuly concluded: "Such comments sugget that the gap in performance between Playstation3 and Xbox 360 is nowhere near as powerful as some would like us to believe and that the console may even be less able than Microsoft’s" With such conclusion he shows that he doesn't have a clue about developing for PS3 and 360. PS3 architecture and memory is too different from the 360's and simple ports will cause problems. Ubisoft encounters memory problems while porting, but if they would develope this game from the ground for the PS3 there would be no problems. It's stated by every dev that to take advantage of PS3's power you have to develope for it from the ground and Ubisoft as they said, don't do it.
Look I m not going to call out any names but SOME of you X360 fan boys need to check yourself. I say this because only about a week ago this very site ran an article about how the NBA 2K7 PS3 version was going to be graphically better than the X360. During that whole thread, you guys gave all kind of excuses as to why the PS3 version was better. Longer development time/development cycles were different Two development teams Not fully understanding the hardware/or not having as much time with the hardware as the PS3. Etc. etc Now you are on the other end of this conversation, and X360 has the positive light and NOW this information ITS TRUTH! WOW! That is really sad. The same reasons the NBA 2K7 is better on PS3 than on X360 is the same reasons this game is better on X360 than on PS3. Right!? I thought that there were some intelligent people on both sides but some of you guys just let me down completely. You gave good constructive ideas before but now you went completely fanboy on the subject. I wont tell you to read the whole thing but for anyone who is putting stock in these discussions do your own research and find out what some if your favorite people have said before. http://www.news4gamers.com/... Truth is, the system is out in 5 weeks, in 2-3 weeks stores WILL have demo stands. Make your own desition then and stop the fanboyism and be GAMERS! “Jump In” and “Welcom3 Chang3”
Well said buddy, again your comments speak the truth and are interesting to read.Good job
Im sure both versions will be great and can't wait for this to come out!
More money on Overtime and man hours for a game thats was completed already. Sony Fuked up Big Time and now have to live with their Decisions. Ubisoft Won't be the only one to do this trust me. Please Sony fan get use to this type of Noise from now on. Bhai Siad: "With Fight Night Round 3 having veins in PS3 version, Virtua Tennis having veins exclusively in PS3 version" Yeah and Jann Lee has Tons of viens on his body that Retracts when he finish attacking. But Do we pay attention to that No you do. How close up are going to be to see veins on tennis player except for cut scenes? BTW why the hell you care about viens so much? Thats not Graphical overpowering anymore Especially seeing how NBA Live 06' Overdid it with viens on 360(From the Same company that brought you FN:R3.) Once again your Point is Rendered obsolete.
I have to agree with everything you said, I don't think this game shows 360 is superior or any of that nonsense.....PS3 will definitely have great games, but it did remind me of something that has been mentioned from time to time, and even prior to the launch of the 360, which is that its ease of development would in FACT cause alot of dev's to make games on the 360 first and then port them to the PS3 in an effort to cut development costs. Yeah, it could also be considered laziness....but hopefully this will not be a trend, if this truly is the case, I'm hoping it will be very rare, because I want to see both systems potential pushed to the max so the best man (console)wins....and I'm not just talking about graphics!...Why? because I know they'll both deliver about the same and it'll just come down to who has the better exclusive games (you) prefer and of course online will be a major factor also too!
both systems pushed to their limits, and then some. I'm not too keen on this "console war", because in my humble opinion, this next generation may be a better time than any to get into gaming, albeit more expensive. It seems that the 3 competetive consoles have very distinct differences that can appeal to the broadest audience yet, and it would really be a shame if ANY of them were to pull out at any time in the near future. There's just too much on the horizon for there to need to be a clear cut winner.
the game developer never can say such things cause this IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN SALE OF GAME
Make fuking video games better.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.