This Just In, Your 99 Yard Touchdown Run Will Look Better On An Xbox 360…
by Chad Lakkis on June 30, 2007 at 9:36 am
Even “Ray Ray” Can’t Help The PS3 Come Back From 30 Frames Down…
It has been confirmed that Madden NFL 08 and NCAA Football 08 will run at 60 frames per second on the Microsoft Xbox 360 and only 30 frames per second on the Sony Playstation 3.
This has to be very frustrating for loyal Playstation owners. The PS3 was supposed to be the better machine and the specs clearly pointed to that, however as of late the “specs” have not been enough to convince video game developers to not cut corners when developing games for the console.
We have seen footage of many games side by side for both the 360 and PS3, and in nearly every one the 360 version appeared to be superior. We know that this is not because Sony’s Next Gen console is not capable of creating equally stunning graphics, because it is.
All of this leaves us wondering when developers are going to start giving Playstation 3 games the resources they need in development to create the type of game experiences so many PS3 fans have been waiting for and deserve.
 |
|
- Real World Weather Affects NCAA 08
- BlackSite: Area 51 Free Demo Available on Xbox Live Marketplace Now
- Six Million Dollars Glides into Blizzard’s Hands via Judgement Against MDY
- New Stranglehold Maps on Xbox 360, Coming Soon to PS3
- Big Shock: Incredible First Day Sales for GTA IV
- TGS07: Home, Sony’s PS3 Social Network, Delayed Until Spring 2008
- Nintendo + Fujifilm = Mii Business Cards?
- New Call of Duty 4 Maps on the Way
on June 30, 2007 12:53 pm
the ps3 is so far just a hype machine, sony has to start making it easy for people to develope on thier systems instead of trying to shove a new movie format down everyone,s throat. they are like ea in the standpoint that they were the top dog for so long, they got lazy, ignored gamers, and they dropped the ball. no longer do they care about gamers, as they did in 1995. It’s now about their entertainment division.
on June 30, 2007 6:41 pm
PS3 is unquestionably a more expensive platform to develop for. Games are a business, when Sony either provides better tools, or starts deferring the cost of the additional development expense PS3 will get better games. Riddle me this Batman, if you are a game developer why should you spend 25% more to build the same game for a different console that is not as widely adopted.
on June 30, 2007 6:46 pm
toddmoe,
That is the uphill battle that Sony faces. It was not long ago that Sony came in and took over the market rendering the Dreamcast all but dead. Karma anyone?
Mad-
on July 1, 2007 1:09 am
[...] [From Ripten] [...]
on July 1, 2007 2:09 am
well…Sony has been pushing PSTriple as blu-ray player and the Home service, game development has been suffering as result…
first it was delays in blu-ray diode, then further delay in sending out developer’s console…now we see that promised 1080p60fps games are non-existant…
at least it’s doing pretty good in Japan…
on July 1, 2007 2:42 am
Call me crazy, but I do believe while the PS3 has more raw power in the tech specs, the 360’s architecture is better suited for gaming and game design. And like streetsweeperz and toddmoe mentioned programing for the Cell has got to be a pain…Brute force isn’t always the key.
on July 1, 2007 2:46 am
i dunno man… the first few 360 games didnt look too stunning either… look at the first party software in line from sony, those look amazing… in my honost opinion, it’s just lazy port jobs… Oblivion is an example of a game when developers devot time to it, they can make it just as good, even better…
but ya, maybe next year, developers will know the system better… but for now, i guess i will be buying my muilti platform games on the 360
on July 1, 2007 3:40 am
WaSSaBi - Hope your 360 can last the next few months so…keep it in the frezer or sumit… :)
on July 1, 2007 4:15 am
Well… 60 or 30 frames per second doesn’t really change the quality.
As a comparison: the best format for Blue-ray movies is 1080p/24 – that’s 24 frames per second. And that looks REALLY good…
on July 1, 2007 5:25 am
24 frames per second is double what the human eye needs for animation to look fluid. Running it at 60 will only put more stress on the processor, my shitbox 360 already has enough trouble running Earth Defense force. So, whatever.
on July 1, 2007 5:30 am
Here’s the simple reason. Very little market penetration = little developer attention. It’s a which came first, the chicken or the egg scenario. Developers won’t put the effort in unless there’s customers, and they won’t get customers until the games are up to scratch.
The 360 is apparently dead easy to develop for after all, Microsoft has always looked after developers. It’s not a hardware issue at all, purely business. This happened all through console history and it would be foolish to think that Sony can’t make the same mistakes.
on July 1, 2007 5:52 am
@Pierre & Mattmanhu
Couldn’t care less since I don’t own either 360 or PS3, but so you know…
“The reason computer rendered video has a noticeable afterimage separation problem and camera captured video does not is that a camera shutter interrupts the light two or three times for every film frame, thus exposing the film to 2 or 3 samples at different points in time. The light can also enter for the entire time the shutter is open, thus exposing the film to a continuous sample over this time.
These multiple samples are naturally interpolated together on the same frame. This leads to a small amount of motion blur between one frame and the next which allows them to smoothly transition.
In this fashion, the common frame rate of 24 fps (frames per second) produces 48 or 72 pulses of light per second, the latter rate being above the flicker fusion rate for most people most of the time.”
~Wikipedia (sources are listed on FPS wiki page)
So, for a game to display “afterimage” free (aka no jerkiness), it needs to be running at 48-72 fps, which is what your technically seeing in TV shows and movies.
What that means… 60 fps is “ideal” for gaming, hence why every PC gamer uses 60 fps as a baseline (also, most monitors are 60-75 hertz, so they can only display 60-75 fps anyway).
on July 1, 2007 7:00 am
are we all forgetting something??….Heavenly sword, Metal Gear solid 4, and those littles things by the way of Little Big Planet! obvioulsy Sony are crapping themselves over NFL, i mean , its such a sort after game, probably one of the best of all time…..NOT!
So whats actually being said here? is it that if companies bring out more powerful machines then we wont get to use them properly cos developers dont want to spend?? Then why aint we all still playing the NES?? surely games for that would cost pennies!
on July 1, 2007 7:52 am
Uncomfirmed rumours posted as news ,
EA Have never got my money and never will , so like anyone cares about a few “american” football games , for god`s sake all of u are poofs anyway try playing a proper game like rugby or FOOTBALL ( as u say Soccer )
yanks are wanks.
on July 1, 2007 8:05 am
Love it or hate it, Madden is always one of the top selling games each year. Using that as a metric in comparison of platforms is huge, and it means a lot in the industry.
on July 1, 2007 8:45 am
@Nyteshade
Movies do NOT run at 60 FPS, they run at 24..and TV runs at 30 FPS. The 48-72 is not FPS, it’s how many times the TV flashes(the hertz of the screen), and it flashes the same image based on the FPS. With computer gaming people raise the hertz and the FPS because of the quality of the screen and their distance from it… flickering is much more noticable. Not the same on a console. You are correct though in that 60 FPS will still look better than 30, as it will be smoother. Of course I hate sports games so it matters little to me, and anytime a company designs a game for one system and then ports it to another the ported one always comes out crappy. That’s always been true, and since XBox has been around longer they’re getting the original version.
on July 1, 2007 9:00 am
@wyttearp
did you even read Nyteshades post?
on July 1, 2007 9:47 am
Yes, which is why I replied the way I did. He said TV and movies run at 48-72 FPS, which they don’t. Then he said 60 FPS is ideal for gaming, which is absolutely true for PC gaming on a monitor, and mostly true for console gaming on a TV (more important in high def than on standard). Of course we are talking about console gaming, so it isn’t nearly as big a deal. I wasn’t completely disagreeing with him. I have a PS3 and no XBox, but 60 FPS is obviously something that is nice to have… certainly not a dealbreaker when it comes to console gaming though. At least not for anyone who cares about the games more than bragging about their system.
on July 1, 2007 12:06 pm
I’m sorry,
If anyone is going to tell me that 30 frames doesn’t matter compared to 60, you are KIDDING yourself.
When a game runs at 30 fps, i can tell, simple as that. 60 is fluid, 30 is jerky but coherent.
When forza opted for 60, i understood, and i think it was a good decision, esp. for racing and feeling of speed (granted, racing games are more demanding when it comes to the required fps for a good experience).
ON that note, animations, running, etc. will LOOK BETTER at 60 frames… Read the title.
on July 1, 2007 12:22 pm
When you buy a console, any console, you are giving up all hope of being free to select the hardware and software that offers you the most freedom.
All complaints about one console versus another fall on deaf ears here.
It’s a PC. Only the most locked-in and unupgradeable PC you can possibly buy. If you don’t like having limited options then don’t support the damn things. Consoles are a throwback to a time when people didn’t own computers. They are a marketing ploy to produce ever larger profits.
So, go back to your XBoxes and PS3s and deal with your choice.
on July 1, 2007 12:43 pm
Like a phone that can surf the web, or an mp3 player that can also watch videos, the PS3 is a $600 blu-ray player that, Oh by the way!, can also play some games.
on July 1, 2007 2:03 pm
look everyone, everyone know the ps3 is technically superior. EA has always had a problem with lazy development, and they have to play to the strengths of each console.
“We want to make sure that we give the best experience we can on each platform. In designing a game, there are all sorts of tradeoffs that include frame rate, visuals, features, AI, etc. Football is an extremely challenging sport to replicate because of the number of people on the field, their interaction, and the scope of the environments. As you can see, every company making a football game this year made a decision that the best experience for the Xbox 360 included 60fps whereas the best experience for the PS3 was 30fps. We certainly believe that both the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are our football products are outstanding experiences and recommend that each gamer look at the entire experience, not just one aspect. We think they’ll be very happy no matter which version of the game they play.”
that was made by the vice president of EA sports marketing. maybe people should get their facts straight before they post such raw bullshit. and in response to everyones blu ray argument. look at the numbers, i don’t think sony shoving the ps3 as a blu ray player down peoples throats was such a bad idea, because as of last month, blu rau is leading in sales at a 5 to 1 ratio.
on July 1, 2007 2:33 pm
if you want to swallow that PR crap, be my guest.
SPIN AWAY….
on July 1, 2007 2:42 pm
So now sonyfanboys are saying that 30 FPS is as good as 60 FPS. YEAH.
on July 1, 2007 3:24 pm
It’s a really common misconception. Since we can’t tell the differnence between 30 and 60 FPS in film, people think the same is true for games, but it isn’t. If it were the other way around you’d hear just as many Xbox fans saying that 60 FPS is no better than 30.
on July 1, 2007 6:21 pm
graphics are nice and all but whatever happend to when it was just about gameplay because they’ll probably have the same gameplay and if not that will be really weird
on July 1, 2007 9:20 pm
Paul says, ‘Consoles are a throwback…’
The console share of the market gets bigger and bigger all the time, while the PC side shrinks.
on July 2, 2007 12:44 am
Jajaja, PS3 is getting owned, in sales and now by devs. Noone wants to spend time tweaking 60fps into a game on a console noone wants. See the GC for an example. PS3 is dead in the water.
on July 2, 2007 1:55 am
This would be the developers’ fault. The PS3 is far, far superior to the 360 hardware-wise, give it some time, before long the devs won’t be so daunted by the task.
That being said, devs on sports games rarely try anything outside the box. Not surprising.
on July 2, 2007 2:11 am
far, far superior??
whatever i guess. True, the cell is a pretty powerful CPU on paper, but not in practice as of yet….. Maybe that’ll change. The 360’s CPU is no slouch.
Everything i’ve seen has put the 360’s GPU above the RSX, considering how it is a true next gen GPU with some pretty nifty features not even found in high end next gen PC cards (i.e. 10mb edram), it’s certainly not last gen like RSX… and it can do things the RSX can’t, less shader restrictions, no penalty MSAA, memexport, more polygons on screen..
If anything both have strengths and weaknesses, and after it’s all said and done, both are pretty even. 360 is by no means tapped out yet, and they are just scratching the surface of the PS3, i think the more things change, the more they’ll stay the same, with PS3 possibly outshining 360 only much later in its life cycle, if it can manage to make it their gracefully and devs put the time in…
on July 2, 2007 5:30 am
I’m on the fence and I’m one of the guys who really only plays sports games. Once this info starts to go around the PS3 will be in big trouble. The main reason Dreamcast failed was because they did not have the support of EA.
Which means Madden. There are alot of madden players who are waiting ot upgrade to next generation. This could be another nail in the coffin of the PS3. If MS lowers the price when halo hits the shelves or offer a bundle where you would get halo 3 free if you buy the 360 it may be over for Sony. Sony needs to lower the price now to the price of an elite. Right now I don’t even know if that will help them.
They are fighting against economics.
on July 2, 2007 6:37 am
Once Sony lost Ace Combat I knew they were in trouble. The game never made it to the Xbox.
but now it’s a timed exclusive on the 360.
How many Ace combat fans will wait for the PS3 version or just save $200 on a system and play it this fall. Metal Gear doesn’t hit the PS3 until 2008.
This news doesn’t help. I believe this is going to go for the Basketball games also running at 60 fps.
So you lost your exclusive flight game along with all the sports gamers going to 360 this Christmas. It’s going to be a long cold winter for the Ps3.
on July 2, 2007 7:33 am
“WaSSaBi on July 1, 2007 2:46
i dunno man… the first few 360 games didnt look too stunning either…”
Err…. PGR3?!
on July 2, 2007 7:52 am
hey andrew.. The PS3 games have been under dev. longer so u can`t compare it that way Oo
on July 2, 2007 10:01 am
Many people have already pointed out the reasons to this, but to sum up:
1. There are more 360’s than PS3’s in the wild ATM. Any development team would either give equal resources to both platforms, or more to the 360 (it’s just logical that you would put more resources where the results could have a higher impact on sales).
2. It is harder to develop for the PS3 than the 360. Assuming equal resources were given to both, the PS3 would always come out with an inferior product. This fact just isn’t arguable either, and not a single developer for both denies this.
Until there are more PS3’s than XBox360’s, I doubt any games will look better on PS3. The best looking games for PS3 will be PS3 only, and for reasons that stem from the above. The development reasons are also why the best looking games (that would still be first generation IMHO) that utilize the PS3 hardware at least to a better degree than multi-platform games won’t come out for another year.
on July 2, 2007 10:39 am
agreed,
I would expect like games like Gran turismo 5 to be pretty drool worthy, from what i’ve seen, it’s gonna be stellar. Honestly, MGS4 doesn’t impress me too much yet (i’ve seen some really horrid textures in game, gears spoiled me i guess)..
but for the most part, i don’t think there will be enough to make me want a PS3 in the near future…
my 360 will suit me just fine (90+ games coming out in the next 6 months or so, should keep me pretty busy)..
on July 2, 2007 5:11 pm
[...] per second on the Sony Playstation 3. This has to be very frustrating for loyal Playstation owners.read more | digg story Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
on July 4, 2007 11:31 pm
I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read the post that said something like “ps3 lovers are trying to tell us that there is no difference between 30fps and 60fps.”
I am sure that most of us ps3 lovers or owners realize that things will look better once they start making 60fps games, but the bottom line is even at 30fps the games can look fabulous- in fact they make look so good that the average user wouldn’t be able to see the difference.
I’m more concerned with the gameplay of madden and I would rather them enhance the gameplay then worry about an extra 30fps.
on July 5, 2007 1:17 pm
Hahaha its funny that the Crappy Madden Game is still by far the best on the Ps2 yeah the Graphics look better on the 360 and 360 port to Ps3 version but. I still play the ps2 version. Sport games on the 360 are the worst everytime I’ve played NCAA 07 and Live 07 they just kept eating up my Disc’s and scratching them.The 360 in my opinion is by far the worst system by far that should have been delayed and tested longer.Gears War ran pretty good,and Oblivion just skipped all the damn time! Trade in Value of a 360 at my Local Gamestop is only 180 usd i can get 150 for my psp and its cheaper to buy new vs the 360. All in all Yes 60fps is better than 30 fps but when a system over long periods of time is running a HDD at those speeds something is going to break very quickly especially if the system has a high failure rate 33%. I’ve went through 2 xbox’s and still have my original 360 still but i rarely play it only game played lately was GoW 2 months ago
on July 7, 2007 10:23 pm
[...] Madden and NCAA football on 360 = 60fps. PS3 = 30fps. [...]
on July 11, 2007 10:08 am
[...] Filed under: Digg Articles, Video Games, Microsoft — Jason Jeffrey @ 9:06 am Straight from Ripten: “It has been confirmed that Madden NFL 08 and NCAA Football 08 will run at 60 frames per [...]
on July 13, 2007 7:23 pm
So Yodi the 360 is stratching up your cds?
and how do the PS3 developers get the FPS up to 60?
on July 26, 2007 5:27 pm
[...] last thing we looked to address was the framerate discrepancies between the two systems. For those who are not familiar with this, the 360 version of Madden will [...]
on August 1, 2007 7:18 pm
[...] cool as this is idea is, it’s still been reported elsewhere that the 360 version of NCAA 08 runs at a silky smooth 60 frames per second, and the PS3 version is [...]
on October 8, 2007 8:13 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]