Depending on who you ask, the PlayStation 3 is either potentially the console equivalent of the second coming of Christ -- or one of the biggest travesties in the history of consoles. Although I'm still in the "let's wait and see category," ex-Harmonix developer Jason Booth is obviously of the "been there done that already" mindset.
The latest entry in his own personal blog entitled PS3 misconceptions and spin does more than raise a few eyebrows -- It flat out throws a cavalry of fans on the offensive, and boy do they mean business. So what exactly caused such ire? Well according to Jason, Sony has been using clever marketing to "dupe" us into believing that the PS3 is the golden standard of gaming, that of which the Xbox 360 couldn't possibly ever hope to achieve. In fact, he thinks it's actually the other way around, but don't take my word for it:
For those unaware, I'm going to break it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the PS3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck
Hit that jump button, and prepare to see through the eyes of a real-life developer!
Not exactly the best way to start off an argument, but lets see his logic behind this. After all, he is a game developer who has worked on both the PS3 and Xbox 360, right? That fact alone certainly gives him more credence than most commentors on the sidelines that like to go apeshit over anything negative lobbed at the PS3. His key points:
- The PS3's fill rate is significantly slower than the Xbox 360, to the tune of roughly half the pixel pushing power.
- The cell chip is powerful, but gaming code isn't ideal for being split across multiple processors.
- Blu-ray is great for storage space, but not as fast as streaming data from the Xbox 360's DVD drive.
So what's the bottom line? Well... it's not exactly pretty.
"So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code."
Talk about an ending quote! If true, this is certainly damning for Sony. After all, Jason isn't exactly the first developer to spout off about his displeasure with coding on the PS3. Then again, I think Sony has seen a similar situation in the past with the PS2 -- and that tricky machine turned out some pretty amazing games when all was said and done.
Trouble is, that was then, and this is most definitely now. More than a couple of PS3 games have had their release date pushed back, while the Xbox 360 version is (or will be) on store shelves. As much as I want to shrug this all off as another anti-Sony propaganda piece to put a feather in Microsoft's hat, I'm apt to believe at least part of what Jason is trying to tell us.
He might be completely off base with his comments that Sony is forever doomed to a fate of sucky games and laughable ports that will never look or play as well as their Xbox 360 counterpart -- which I refuse to believe -- but we cannot ignore the writing on the wall as it pertains to Sony at this snapshot in time. Sony has a lot of work to do, and it sure would be nice for a change to see developers coming out of the woodwork to defend the PS3 platform.
So now I leave you with this question: Is Jason just the disgruntled former programmer for the PS3 platform that many people would have you believe, or is he yet another voice of reason trying desperately to remove the wool from our eyes? Oh great Internet Matlocks...I'm more than interested in hearing what you have to say about this.
[Via N4G]
Contest:
1:08 PM on 10.26.2007
| 
In before Hexfix freaks out and says PS3 will sell 300 million... God I hate that guy.
Coming from the developer's point of view, I can see why he thinks that way. The PS3 seems to be much harder to code for, and as such I can understand why developers would want to stay away from it and code for the Xbox 360. It is apparently much easier to code for the Xbox due to its multiple similarities to a Windows PC
Well Sony developers don't have to make multiplatform games. If you are making something like GRAW 2 and it takes X amount of hours to make it for the 360 and then have put so much time into the port that you have to delay for months you probably aren't as excited at the PS3's "superior" abilities.
Devs will do some great things on the PS3, but we haven't seen any evidence that the PS3 is able to produce games that the 360 cannot.
"explain.. ..why most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck"
I can understand Xbox ports that suck, but this fellow might have an agenda beyond the initial look, forecasting that PS3 *exclusives* will continue to suck. So he not only sincerely thinks 'most of' Resistance fall of man, heavenly sword, ratchet&clank suck , he also says "most of" MGS and Killzone2 and LittleBigPlanet and Uncharted and GT5 and Haze will suck.
I am not taking him into consideration. Sorry guys, he looks somehow misguided.
Don't get me wrong, my attitude towards the PS3 has changed dramatically since its launch (for the better). But it's still not what the 360 is. I'm going to get one for the exclusive games, but I'm still upset that in-game XMB isn't available, along with custom soundtracks, cross-game chat, free demos of PSN games, cross-game invites, etc. My beef isn't with the multiplatform games not meeting the same level as the 360, but the actual PS3 itself. The most attractive thing about the PS3 at this point is how quiet and reliable the hardware is... at least until MGS4 comes out.
I think the problem is slowly being fixed by sony. If you look at the latest crop of mediocre games like Sega Rally Revo, Conan, and Jericho they look excatly the same on both systems and I don't think that the developers have put that much time into them.
Ratchet and Clank and Motorstorm are the only 2 ps3 games I've seen that the 360 may not be able to do, but they're done by sony backed studios.
Sony is a developer and company we have come to know to produce quality titles, but over a long period of time. Look how old the PS2 was when Shadow of the Colossus was released.
The Xbox was essentially a Halo pushing platform to start, and some amazing games were later released on that system, but in truth, many smaller crappier games were released as well.
The PS3 has had a fairly hard race so far, stumbling out of the gate with promises of "we can make good graphicz!!" and the constant pushing of Blu-ray as a selling point.
The 360 has a myriad of excellent titles now, even if they only opened with ports of Call of Duty 2. It took the implementation of Xbox Live to really project the console to the level that it could really shine on.
I love Sony. I was a die hard fanboy for them when I was younger. The PS2 was the first system I bought for myself (w00t Blockbuster)
Sony has a history solid development and good games for their previous system. I think they feel that they need to hide behind Blu-Ray because that flood of system pushing games has yet to hit.
I think that Jason makes excellent points about the difficulty in coding for the PS3, but I don't necessarily agree that it will be the system killer he predicts.
I am still waiting for something to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my 5-600 dollars will not be wasted on a fancy DVD player though.
I should mention that I waited until the Xbox Live Arcade 360 to launch before finally buying one.
I agree. We should wait and see. I hardly feel that we will be disappointed, and patience has shown to be a virtue when it comes to Sony.
Love the PS3 hardware and the few games I've managed to play for it. That, and I'm not worried about it breaking down on me the way my 360 has. The online interface is total shit in my opinion, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as what the 360 has to offer.
Love/hate the 360 hardware. When it works, it works great. However, I've never owned anything in my entire life that has broken down this much. I ask you this: How many other items in life would you stand behind with this track record? It's a freakin console version of the Yugo.
the 360's architechture is more familiar. its easier to work with something you already know. developers in all fields resist change. especially when they see what they want to achieve can be done just as well using traditional methods.
why relearn from scratch to build basically the same thing you've already created? I don't think the cell is a bad chip, i think sony needs to tune thier SDK to make it more familiar to developers. don't force them to learn the cell. if the chip is so fucking godlike, teach the chip to behave how the dev's want it to. allow it to run in more than one mode, so the devs that want to code along with sony's vision can do so. i can't argue with the fact that you should technically be able to get more out of the cell than your standard CPU, but a lot of the time, thats not even necessary.
sony fucked up by focusing too much on the technology behind the cell, and not putting enough time/thought into the SDK used to develop for it. if you don't please the devs, you don't get the games. if you don't get the games, you don't get the gamers.
arrogance doesn't only piss of the consumer.
It's the 3rd parties that need that extra help. They're being lazy about it because why optimize the code for the PS3? It's install base isn't even 1/2 that of the 360. Economically it makes sense to me. But, Sony shouldn't allow 3rd parties to put shit on their console because they didn't work hard enough. I think that may have a lot to do with the delays... Sony saying "no" to some devs pushing an inferior product on the PS3.
Help em out Sony and we'll start seeing better games with the same release date as their counterpart...
Is that pixel fill number thing true?
Is it because of the "generic" video processor they went with in the PS3?
The XBox 360 architecture allows certain things to be done quickly with very little code. Specifically, these are the lower level tasks (like loading data from the disk) that a lot of modern software programmers assume to be trivial (in a way).
Strained Real World Comparison:
A soldier who is used to wielding a Glock being forced to fight with a 6-shooter. Yeah, he can get the same results, but it's going to be tough to get used to loading the bullets one at a time.
I know nothing about guns, but that was the best example I could think of. In each case, the person is being forced to do something that they formerly took for granted.
One thing developers have always said about the 360 was the ease in developing for it in comparison to the PS3, but also the tech support Microsoft has made available to all developers. If I was a 3rd-party developer whose money is on the line with the titles being made I would go with the console where ease of development and strong tech support is the norm.
PS3 fans seem to label developers complaining about the PS3 as being lazy. In fact, i think they're not lazy but more frustrated at trying to do the same thing for the PS3 they've easily done for the 360 and not have support from the people who actually know how to work the kits.
I do agree with what someone said earlier that Sony seems willing to weather the storm of negative press from analysts and developers by falling back on brand name recognition. I've bought pretty much every console ever released in the US since the Atari 2600 on Day 1 and I will say that I've still yet to buy a PS3. The price was never a stumbling block for me. Seeing how the games being released have turned out has been whats keeping me from getting one. I do see myself getting myself one for 2008. Hopefully by then some of the complaints developers have had about the PS3 will have been addressed and fixed. One can only hope.
Programmers used to scoff at slower less efficient programming languages that are now staples. What you have to realize is that our sanity is much more important than pushing it to the limit.
Hell, we could make ridiculous games if we programmed in assembly, but that would take an infinite amount of time longer and be impossible to maintain.
Say what you will of microsoft as a hardware developer, but they know their stuff as a software pusher. They have decades of the best experience on how to get developers, and how to get developers to work well. That's why windows is on the top, not because it's the best operating system, but because it has all the applications and all the driver support that the others don't. Apple tries to do it alone, and linux has no market.
It's a capitalist system, and MS knows how to feed it.
Although my primary role is lead QA / support for our PSP title in dev (no asking what is is: it's pretty embarrassing and I also like working here, so nuts to you.), I work as a "crunch time" asst. tester with the QA team on the ps3 and 360 project and the devs are always cursing out the ps3 for "barfing" where it shouldn't (or doesn't on the 360)
Now, i'm nowhere near the level of our crazy engine programmers, but even I can see a noticeable difference in dev time. Our 360 code base is used by the art team to test and refine on, because the engine running on the ps3 cannot reliably push out some "hacky" environmental / animated effects without the engine draw time optimized endlessly.
we need to finish the project and THEN optimize, going back to juice it later if we want/have time...not the other way around.
we don't have first tier dev status so getting help through our publisher (also not a big boy) is tougher from them than from MS say our devs and producer.
And yes, the dev kit thing from sony was a MAJOR pain in the ass. The PSP experience seems to be smoother, but the title is totally different (both 3D run/jumps, but obviously the 360/PS3 title is a little beefier)
from a strictly economic view: we spend more money to make the same game for PS3 due to overtime and hiring more coders, and the user base for the 360 is bigger. Our publisher will most likely drop future PS3 dev work for us if it doesn't move units.
So yeah.
For those people who don't keep abreast of the console wars online, is the PS3 still that much more attractive than the XBox? if so, why? I did note that the PS3's sold did not appear to leave with games attached, so maybe people that wanted to play Meet the Robinsons in Bluray?
These days, you're seeing brilliant stuff like God of War 2 on the PS2, though: The ones who've learned to code properly for the PS2 are pulling off stuff that could almost pass off as next-gen.
To be fair, the guy takes a lot of liberty with phrasing and selecting what sucks etc. Then again, more than enough developers echo his sentiments. The comments on his blog are really the worst though.
i'm sick of this bs, i think all 36os will break. i think the failure rate is really 100% if the console is really used and tons of games are played an beaten, the console will die. the casual bs gamer who doesnt really use his 360 hardcore, well his will last longer, but all of them will have short life spans..
how can people praise a product that doesnt work right. it baffles me.
Hell, I've enjoyed many a great game on the PSX and PS2 (can't afford a PS3 right now...), but when I think of great video game developers, Sony just isn't a company that comes to my mind, even after being reminded of their scattered successes by people such as yourself.
I often forget that Sony too has thrown its hat into the game design arena over the years, because to me, Sony doesn't even have as prolific a presence in the world of video game development as many of the third party developers that have released content on their systems over the years.
Maybe it's due to what you said. They don't release titles in the volume that other companies do, and that might be a factor. I'm not too sure though, because quality always speaks louder than quantity. Whatever the case may be, whatever the cause for it, when I think of all the great video games released on Sony systems over the years, with but a few exceptions, I couldn't tell you of very many of them that weren't released for them by a first or third party developer.
Call it ignorance if you must, call me a fanboy if it'll make you happy, but I can't agree with you, because in the end, they don't even make a blip on my gamer radar as a developer.
"The Xbox was essentially a Halo pushing platform to start, and some amazing games were later released on that system, but in truth, many smaller crappier games were released as well.
I take issue with what you said about smaller, crappier games being released on the XBox. Not because it's untrue, but as a self-professed Sony fanboy from early on in your life, I wonder if you might have the blinders on when it comes to the fact (and yeah, it's a fact...) that the same thing has happened on nearly every system under the sun, including those released by Sony. Crappy games are released, those amongst us who are wise ignore them in favor of the good ones, and life goes on.
Or something.
360 games dont take advantage of their hd, because it didnt come standard with every unit.. Blah..
it wont be until the unreal guys and id software start making multi core engines that we will see a huge next gen performance boost. i am not impressed with many of the games out now. motostorm, heavenly sword, lair, could not be done on the 360, they have way more going on than any 360 game i have ever seen to date..
Let alone 512MB unified for textures...
but with the 360, i mean windows api direct x hell is being pushed, and they aint doing shit for multi thread, its still the same old lame shit. no innovation. they are just milking the past.. microsoft is all ways so far behind dragging its feet when it comes to api, fuck i think open gl is still better...
sucker punch loves the ps3 says its easy. konami likes it, factor 5 loves it, naughty dog likes it. i mean come on. its all these crap pc devs porting their crap 3rd party engines that they didnt make that are having a cow. people who dont know how to really code are having a cow, they are used to apis doing everything for them. the pros got no problems, its all the 2 year grads from windows tech university api direct x hell that are complaining and bitching..
idiots..
"The dreamcast is the hardest console I have ever programmed for, but if I had a choice of programming on that or the PS2, the Dreamcast wins hands down".
I know, I know, maybe they truly do love developing for the thing, but until someone who's motives are less suspect comes along and raves, I can't help but not putting much stock in what they say.
Or maybe I'm just trying to get a rise out of you. The world may never know. I know I sure as hell don't.
The reason the PS2 had so many great games, even though it was a piece of shit to code for, was because it had a fucking HUGE install base (not nearly as big as Sony's 120 million claim, but that's another matter entirely).
The PS3, on the other hand, has less than half the sales of a console released a week later than it, and all it's "killer apps" won't be out until after next year, by which time the 360's Halo fanbase will be truly cemented and the Wii's Mario and Smash Brothers fans will have theirs.
Don't forget that most devs now focus on the Wii, because they can man a handful of teams for what it costs to man one team on the PS3. It means a lot of shovelware, but most people ignore all the poorly built shit the previous Playstations had in their time, and instead focus on MGS and Ico and what have you. No one remembers launch titles like Fantavision as being the title that defined the console.
As for Wii games looking like ass, it's no surprise. No third party developers learned to code for the GCN effectively in the first place, how the hell would they get a more powerful architecture to look pretty?
i think the story, the look, and art of lair was great.. the controls sucked. thats it..