“PS3 Version Was Not Running As Well” - Dark Sector Almost Canned?

by Dan Landis on February 27, 2008 at 1:06 am

Josh Austin, Producer for Digital Extremes’ Dark Sector, conveyed to us that the team struggled initially with developing the title for the PS3, so much so that they had “serious” conversations about what to do next . Was Dark Sector close to being scrapped? Read on to see his exact words.

“So, yeah, this is the PS3 version, umm… it looks just as good as the 360 version, which we’re very happy about. Towards the end we started having some serious conversations about what we were gonna do, uh, but we ended up pulling it off, so we’re very proud of that.”

I asked for clarification on what that meant, and he replied simply “It was just not running as well as the 360″. We continued the conversation about these problems, only we went off the record so I won’t discuss it further.

Just be happy knowing that you have more ammunition in the flame wars. Hooray! PS3 owners should also feel comforted knowing that some smart dudes got the game running on PS3’s superior hardware. Feel free to argue about it in the comments section.

Update: D3’s PR got in touch with me this afternoon and explained to me that Dark Sector was never officially “almost canned” for the PS3. My apologies to Josh if anything he said was taken out of context.

Seacrest out.

Share This:

Tags: canned, comparison, Dark-Sector, digital-extremes, flame, josh-austin, scrapped, seacrest, version

Related Posts:

Comments

jackdoe
on February 27, 2008 1:42 am

So wait. Did you actually get to see the PS3 version of the game? Cuz that guy’s weak statements aren’t exactly reassuring.
Dude
on February 27, 2008 1:43 am

They got it working, correct? So… Your saying it was hard for them to make it work. Yeah, thats been thrown around since the PS3 was release. Not really new. They where just to freaking lazy to actually understand on how the PS3 works, but they actually did it and it worked out in the end.

It takes effort to learn a new system, guess developers are to lazy and cheap to actually learn it so they have to put down the console. In the end it is the better system and every year its proving that. Give the freaking PS3 a chance to actually show what its really made out of and let the developers actually come to understand it. Its not like every developer is having troubles. Its only the lazy ones who can’t get there under paid workers to learn something.
Dan Landis
on February 27, 2008 1:47 am

Yes, we did. When they ran through the single player stuff, it was running on a PS3. That’s when he made his comments. “This here is the PS3 version which we finally got running as well as the 360 version”. It looked good, and the load times were only, like, 2 seconds, which they said was a constant throughout the game. I wouldn’t worry much about the quality of the PS3 version at this point. They figured it out, as he said.
jackdoe
on February 27, 2008 1:49 am

Thanks for clarifying.
Dan Landis
on February 27, 2008 1:52 am

You’re quite welcome, jackdoe.
kiezer
on February 27, 2008 2:05 am

I thought this game was made for PS3 first, and being ported to 360? I was sure PS3 was lead platform……I guess I was wrong
shamon
on February 27, 2008 2:44 am

im getting this anyway for the ps3 ,when you make a game for a system there always going to be problems.
TX3
on February 27, 2008 2:55 am

(off-topic)I find it interesting that they use the word fanboy in the picture. Think about that term for a minute isn’t everyone here a fanboy / fangirl on gamers sites. Read my blog about that term I just think it’s just thrown around too much.

HTML: http://www.gamespot.com/users/...

With the PlayStation 3 programing of video games I think it’s more like a PC than the XBOX 360. Even though the PC is thee most powerful console there’s going to be a point when it has to start streaming. I think that’s why the RAM is like cut in half when compared to the XBOX 360. I just think the coding throws them off but still works very much like a PC in many ways.
Hank
on February 27, 2008 4:08 am

If the PS3 is “superior” hardware then games should be easier to run on it, not harder. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves, and simply perpetuating Sony marketing B.S.
lazy_dev
on February 27, 2008 5:14 am

Yeah, it’s just those few, lazy developers that are having difficulties bringing games to the PS3. Like these guys. And dozens of other cases of games being pushed back on the PS3 even if the lead platform was originally PS3 (made famous by DiRT), or all the other devs who made a simultaneous launch at similar quality but only by putting extra emphasis on the PS3 version (a la Call of Duty 4). Not to mention games that only run as well on the PS3 because of lengthy installs (a la Devil May Cry).

Except for these few, lazy developers- “few” being the entire games industry- programming for the PS3 is a breeze.
kiezer
on February 27, 2008 7:07 am

We all know PS3 is harder to develop for. So Hank, superior or even equal hardware in terms of raw horsepower has nothing to with the way games run on said hardware, but more to do with the skills the developers have to get the best from said hardware. We know from Unchartered, Ratchet, COD4, Burnout, Sega Rally, Motorstorm, Resistance and others, that developers with da mad skills can overcome difficulties without using excuses, b!tching, moaning and whining like quick port, money sniffing lazy +urds. Resistance manages 40 player LAG FREE gameplay (I’ve played it on 64k speed and no lag), so by your theory, PS3’s PSN must be “superior” to MS’s (CHARGED $$$$) Live service, as they struggle to have 16player lag free games, and they are yet to match 40 players online in any game (Frontlines will change that, but not without lag).

Lazy developers, who are too set in old habits, and easy solutions are PS3’s biggest enemy at present. But watch these insipid creatures (hello EA) attitude change once PS3’s big guns start attacking. By the end of 2008 every developer will be praising PS3’s extra storage capacity, and will love making PS3 games, due to it’s (about to explode) user base no’s.

Nobody liked making PS2 games for the 1st 1yr or 2, until it showed it was an unstoppable juggernaut. I think PS3 will be the same (even though, I think no’s for all three user bases will not be as Sonyt one sided this gen).
Utalk
on February 27, 2008 7:42 am

kiezer - I won’t the weed ytou are smoking. But foreal i own all 3 sytem’s and all handheld’s. And PSN doesnt come close to xbox live. You just talking out you’re fanboy a$$. IN this day in age it is hard for dev’s to take the time and resources to learn new hardware. While the dev’s are learning the ps3 they are not making game’s in turn they are losing money and not hitting their deadline’s. Sony should have better tool’s for the dev’s. So they don’t have to waste as much time.
Jim Bob
on February 27, 2008 8:03 am

So they werent very good at programming on the PS3 at the onset. Most other major developers are now doing PS3 dev first and 360 second, cause they know its a slightly new way of thinking to take advantage of the hardware correctly, and the 360 is the old method. I dont think I would purchase the game anyway, just due to his comments. It means that this version was their alpha development efforts on PS3, and the next will be a decent effort.

Same thing with all the horribly ported games last year for PS3 (Rainbow 6, etc etc).
jamten
on February 27, 2008 8:07 am

PS3 version has gimped multiplayer:

Both systems will allow players to create, join, and search for multiplayer games. However, only the X360 gives players a Quick game option, a Custom game option, and a Ranked game option. The Quick game option will pick a game for the player based on their preference of Infection or Epidemic. The Custom game option allows players to set up their own games with the customizable settings of time limit, score limit, number of players, and the availability of bots. Ranked games are directly linked to the X360 Leaderboard. A player’s performance in a Ranked game will determine their position on the X360 Leaderboard. The PS3 allows players to search for or create multiplayer games.
Krispy Demon
on February 27, 2008 8:18 am

When are PS3’s numbers going to skyrocket? What miracle of modern gaming awesomeness is going to get the console to jump ahead of the 360 in a few short months? I just don’t see that happening. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything on the horizon that is going to be a system seller the likes of which will swing people from one side to another.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 8:38 am

Someone needs to tell sony that powerful hardware isn’t much if it’s a bitch and a half to code for. I would have thought they learned that with the ps2.
grass
on February 27, 2008 9:51 am

xbox will alway be better than playstation
grass
on February 27, 2008 9:52 am

playstation3 is a over priced dvd player
Bob
on February 27, 2008 10:11 am

@Hank

If your statement was true, a Formula 1 car should be really easy to drive since it’s powerful. Guess what, it’s not. In fact, it’s quite the contrary.

If you remember, it took about a year on the 360 for games to use the 3 cores. Dead Rising was among the firsts. With the PS3, you’ve got 8 cores. More power, but more complicated.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 11:00 am

@Bob

Actually, it’s six cores. Last I heard, out of the eight “cores” (although they aren’t really cores) the cell has, one is disabled by default for yield related reasons and one is reserved for system use only.
Patrick Steen
on February 27, 2008 11:28 am

That’s correct as of now David for the SPU’s, but don’t forget the PPU. So it’s 7.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 11:29 am

Doesn’t the PPU just act as a traffic cop for the SPU’s though?
Patrick Steen
on February 27, 2008 11:45 am

No it does not. It is more powerful than a Spu. Motorstorm doesn’t use the SPU’s for graphics at all. The Orange Box hardly touches the SPU’s.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 11:47 am

I would’ve swore I heard somewhere people were using the PPU to manage traffic to and from the SPUs in some way.

Curse you, internets.
Patrick Steen
on February 27, 2008 11:54 am

It does that also, but that does not mean it can’t continue to act itself. The PPU is not any kind of buffer, it is it’s own Core that can work independently and in parallel with the SPU’s.

When I said Motorstorm doesn’t use the SPU’s for graphics, I meant the Evolution instead sweighed towards PPU and RSX usage, using SPU’s for physics , audio and other things. For their sequel they have the SPU’s lined up for complex graphics tasks that are traditionally performed on GPU’s.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 11:58 am

I’d be really interested to see what kinds of graphical things that developers do with the cell. I wonder if Sony might eventually think two cell’s was the way to go after all o_O
rwest78
on February 27, 2008 1:47 pm

“Someone needs to tell sony that powerful hardware isn’t much if it’s a bitch and a half to code for. I would have thought they learned that with the ps2.”

But yet the PS2 still was mastered and went on to be the most successful console of all time. If you want something easy to program for, why not just go back to making NES games?
AreEyeSee
on February 27, 2008 2:58 pm

im with hank on this one. but let me put his words into a straight up statement. ps3 sucks. 360 is better. thank you.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 3:05 pm

Nintendo and Microsoft have already shown (GC/Xbox/360) that you can make powerful systems that are also easy to code for. There’s no reason to drag developers through flaming beds of nails if you don’t have to.
Jeremy
on February 27, 2008 3:38 pm

@ Hank

That is a pretty foolish comment. Anyone who has ever done even minor software development knows that as a general rule a system where there is less complexity = a system with much more constraint(less freedom). As you make a system “Easier” to develop on, you have to limit the scope and the freedom of the developer to do so. As you make a system that allows for greater control and flexibility by the developer, complexity will increase and there is no real way around it.. Xbox and ps3 have both chosen their strategy. Devs are saying it is harder to develop on the PS3, but none of them are refusing to develop on it. Why? Well i personally wouldn’t continue to develop on a system if it looked to be a dead end and it was too difficult to get the same quality. I would, however, make the extra effort if it were merely a matter of learning how to use the tools properly.

Just a thought, Why do you think devs can pump out so many titles for the wii? is it because it’s hardware and development system is so vastly superior to the others?

hehe… nes and snes have almost zero load times… are they better than ps3 or x360?

A tool is only as effective as the users understanding of it… trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver is doable but not very effective and can lead to adverse problems…

I could site alot of other factors that are completely ignored in this process… but thats enough for now i think..

Sorry for the rant, I just really hate it when gamers try to pretend like they know anything about development…. Just because you can smoke everyone in COD4 or whatever doesn’t mean you know squat about hardware or software. Don’t simplify and disrespect a process you obviously know nothing about…
SMIRX
on February 27, 2008 3:59 pm

@ Dude,

I find it difficult to comprehend the way people post comments accusing certain developers of being “Lazy”. I am not a programmer or a developer, and I assume that most of you aren’t either. If we don’t understand EVERYTHING about the process involved, then who are we to point the finger at developers. From what I’ve read it usually comes down to the fact that a developer is, after all, a BUSINESS. As a business , you have to consider whether or not it’s worth the extra money and manpower to pursue a project on a system that is more difficult. That is not necessarily lazy, in fact, it’s actually quite smart. However I don’t agree with developers “bashing” the PS3 as a technically insufficient machine after they experience difficulties in programming. That is offending to everyone who owns a PS3, including myself. Which brings me to the most important thing about this article. It appears as though “Digital Extremes” wasn’t satisfied with the notion of releasing a product on the PS3 that would be sub-par, so they considered scrapping it all together. That’s a good thing! If a developer decides they don’t want to use the extra resources involved in creating the PS3 version of a game, then they shouldn’t even try to release a shitty version (cough,”Valve!”cough). I am happy that they got all the bugs fixed because I am looking forward to this game.
Malahk
on February 27, 2008 4:24 pm

Exactly. Why do you think Oddworld Inhabitants snatched Munch out of his wheelchair and dragged him over to the Xbox? It was a console that was both powerful and easy to code for. I remember reading years ago that the Lead Programmer for Munch’s Oddysee said that the PS2 was a bitch and a half to program for, even a year into it’s life cycle. Don’t get me wrong, I love my PS2, but damn. Sony’s really gotta get their act together in terms of pleasing the game developers, lazy or not.
Cenobia
on February 27, 2008 5:05 pm

Is this game even any good? After seeing the original trailer (basically MGS in space) I think this version is going to be a bit of a let down.

Wow, you have a sharpened boomerang…I’ll wait for the review.
Patrick Steen
on February 27, 2008 5:28 pm

David: For more info on SPU usage in PS3 games, I’ll put it in the forums…a whole list of them and quotations from the developers. http://www.ripten.com/forum/viewtopic.php...

As for your second comment, I believe the feeling is that by making a system which is not immediately easy to get into, means that there will be greater growth in graphics and performance - extending the life of the console. The PS2 saw this in its lifetime (compare gow2 to launch games). Since Sony intends its systems to last so long, having a high learning curve is beneficial to the consoles lifetime.

Plus, remember that launch PS3 games were competing with second generation Xbox 360 games - so it can’t be doing that bad a job. Developer’s have even said that coding for the PS3 is easier than early coding on the PS2. Moreover, forcing developers to code on parallel cores can have benefits for both PC and Xbox 360 development. What’s really holding back the PS3 is the lack of memory, and the fact that it is split I think you’ll find that this is what most developers are struggling with (especially in porting).

Mal: I’ll think you’ll find that the design of the PS3 has as much to do with requests from First Party Sony devs as it does with Ken Kutaragi - the cell is a dream to them as long as they can get the hang of it. I’ll once again say that they would have preferred more memory.
Dan Landis
on February 27, 2008 5:29 pm

TX3,

I don’t think you properly understand what a fanboy is. No, not everyone on a gaming website is a fanboy — it’s probably an equal split between fanboys and normal, logical people. Fanboys are irrational, and being a fan of a particular system does not automatically make you a fanboy of that company or system.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 6:41 pm

Yeah, the memory thing puzzles me. A 256mb chunk of memory over here, a 256mb chunk of graphics memory over there. It’s like the designers had one specific idea of how to make a game for the ps3, designed the system that way and said “screw you guys” to anyone who wanted to do it differently.

As for the development times.. purposely making a system hard to design for to drag out the lifespan? That not only sounds stupid, but just plain cruel.
Patrick Steen
on February 27, 2008 6:52 pm

David: It’s giving a system depth , rather than making it a transparent system that you’ll stretch to its limits in the first half of its lifetime. In a perfect world you should reach a consoles limits at the very end of its lifetime - not because you dont want previous games to achieve much - of course you do, but you want the system to exceed expectations and achieve more than you expected it to later in the cycle. This gives the system the ability to compete and stand out in the future rather than its games looking the same as the games that came out 4 years earlier - that would be a let down.

Moreover, it’s about tools and communication - something which, although Sony has improved upon, has taken longer than they should have. The tools NOW given to third party developers are extremely helpful. Tools that the Dark Sector dev’s would not have had when they started development on the PS3.
Krispy Demon
on February 27, 2008 7:18 pm

So launch Xbox games looked just as good as games towards the end of the console’s lifespan? I guess you’re right, because there is no difference in the graphics in Halo and Halo 2… I mean, the Xbox was so easy to develop for that games stagnated while PS2 games just got better and better.

The way it looks to me, and I’m not big time game developers or in-the-know gaming insider journalists like everyone else seems to be, I’m just a consumer who likes to play games a lot, it seems to me that it all comes down to developer support and I don’t see it for the PS3. I can’t recall anyone really coming out and saying that the 360 is hard to develop for or that the company is a pain or anything, and I can think of at least two developers that have complained about the PS3. I’d say three, but Gabe Newell at Valve I won’t count since their game did in fact come out on the PS3, where it was developed by someone else and SUCKED. Plus, I don’t think he really said that it was hard to develop for, just that it was.. what was the word… a total disaster? Considering his predictions on the Wii were true, maybe his opinions are worth noting.

And Patrick, you’re friggin crazy man. You realize what a messed up thing that is? Maybe in your world that’s a good thing, but I don’t see it. First of all, it seems unethical to do it on purpose, and second of all… I don’t know, it just doesn’t make any sense. I mean, like I said earlier, the Xbox was easy to develop for and games still got better over it’s lifespan. Hell, you can already see games getting better on the 360 compared to launch titles. I mean, it’s not just the hardware, but software as well. I know that Natural Motion and Euphoria aren’t graphic type things necessarily, but they can still change the way games are made without requiring any new hardware. Hell, Gears of War 2 looks a bit better then the first one, and I seem to recall a lot of naysayers saying that GoW would be the pinnacle of the 360’s graphics capabilities since it was so easy to develop for. So basically, Sony’s system will have crappier games longer and have less third party support until almost the end of the console’s lifespan, which by then will even more too late than it is now.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 7:40 pm

I really don’t think you HAVE to have a system that’s difficult to code for to have improvements throughout it’s life time. Hell, did you see the video showing off the improvements to the unreal 3 engine? The one where they showed how many more enemies you could have on screen? Better lighting, destructible environments, etc? That looks great.

I really doubt at the end of the 360s lifespan we won’t see at least a couple games that blow gears away, if not in graphics then at least in other ways.
kiezer
on February 27, 2008 7:50 pm

@Krispy Demon.

I would say no’s will grow for PS3′ user base by November when these titles are out.

LBP
Killzone 2
Eight Days
Unchartered 2
Resistance 2
GT5
GTA4
Motorstorm 2
MGS4
Haze
Final Fantasy
Not to mention family Wii competing games like Singstar and Buzz.

With the exception of FF and the addition of a fair few exclusives and multiplats, I’d say PS3’s growth will broaden the gap to a very large degree. Add to this PS3’s ever lowering production costs to retail price tag, FREE online service, a 2nd life type thing called Home (also FREE), and as cliched as it might sound, the profound impact that hd dvd’s death will have on potential console consumers (we all know now that hd tv’s costs have lowered enough now to allow most people to either already have one, or be well on the way to owning one).

For you to ask the question of how will PS3 sell heaps more units, and potentially surpass 360’s user base is ludicrous, for the fact that nothing is a given, but if we take into consideration that PS3 outsold 360 in 2007, and got to 10 million well before 360 did after it’s launch is a pretty good indication. As well as the fact that it is wide documented online knowledge that PS3 has the higher no. of quality exclusives in it’s 2008 lineup.

I’m sure you probably asked the same question to PS2 owners after it’s launch against the Dreamcast, that already had a well established user base, and plenty of aaa games. I’m not being a fanboy here, but as a long time gaming fan, Sony just knows how to pull a rabbit out of their hats…..Even when they bungle things up slightly, and the press jump on them like a lion on a wounded gazelle. Out of all three, Sony’s marketing skills, and general business knowledge manages to pull them out of holes that companies like Sega were incapable of clawing out of.
DavidGX
on February 27, 2008 8:01 pm

Releasing at $600 doesn’t give me a whole lot of faith in their business knowledge. At least they’re making up for it now.
Patrick Steen
on February 27, 2008 8:28 pm

Krispy: I’m not saying I particularily agree with it, but it is the advantage. Comparing the PS2 to the Xbox which lasted 4-5 years is not really enough evidence. Early PS2 games looked good for their time, but by later PS2 standards, now look awful. It’s having growth with the growing abilities, technologies and expectations of the developers.

Nor did I say there’s no growth in the 360 - since 360 games are only really starting to use all three cores. Whether it has as much growth over it’s whole lifetime is another question - but I’d say that Microsoft will looking for a slightly longer lifetime than their original box.

A console cant be constantly updated like a PC, so hiding the tech from developers so it can be found later on is very good. Less experienced developers or those without the official tools will not be able to take early advantage like First Party developers (Naughty Dog etc) but as the code/knowledge becomes available, all developers will be producing things not originally thought possible. That’s the hope, that is. I’m unaware whether this is a conscious decision. Moreover, i agree that tools should be available and memory should be greater. But creating the Cell which is hard to understand and forces developers to think differently, could be an advantage for the industry, even if they find it difficult at first.

“Hell, Gears of War 2 looks a bit better then the first one, and I seem to recall a lot of naysayers saying that GoW would be the pinnacle of the 360’s graphics capabilities since it was so easy to develop for.

So basically, Sony’s system will have crappier games longer and have less third party support until almost the end of the console’s lifespan, which by then will even more too late than it is now.”

That’s just going from one absurd extreme to another.

David: I’d hope there’d be plenty of games that blow Gears away. I’d hope there are plenty now.
Roanson
on February 28, 2008 12:30 am

Sony should go back to butt f***ing panda’s.
Dan Landis
on February 28, 2008 1:46 am

Hiding the tech from developers is good? “Oh, we’re sorry that you want to make the best game you possibly can, but we’ve decided to hide the tech from you so that your next game can be better by default. Stop trying to make good games right now. Wait 4 years and then make a better game.” That’s absolutely ridiculous. And people wonder why multi-platform games are not doing well on PS3.
kiezer
on February 28, 2008 2:52 am

@Dan Landis
What are you even talking about? Who’s hiding what from who? Are you trying to say that Sony are hiding there tech from fellow developers? Not quite sure where your going with that hoopla. They didn’t seem to hide anything from ND, Activision, Insomniac, Epic, Incognito, Criterion, Evolution Studios, Tam Ninja, Sega and all the other 3rd party and 1st party developers, that have already made standout games on the system.

I don’t know (or care) if your a budding journo or what, but at least try to hide that old fanboyism that yearns inside you. You must be an American with all this patriotic “good ol’ U.S. of goddam A” product better and easier to program for crap.

Be a bit more subjective, and less flamboyant fanboy please.

I have a PS3 and a 360 and both are simply great machines. As proven time and time again, and is common knowledge to non-fanboys (or true gamers) games built from ground up by good developers on PS3 hardware will be a benefit to both developers and consumers. Put the effort into the PS3 version, and both games will come up trumps. Different architecture demands different strategies from developers….Some of these lazy developers, are too set in the pc architecture mold and just fail to realize that beaten paths are for beaten developers.
Dan Landis
on February 28, 2008 3:04 am

kiezer,

Thank you for your comments and your interest in this article in general. I especially appreciate the notion that I am a stupid American Xbox fanboy. Please learn to read before you start trying to insult people. My comment was a direct response to Patrick’s comment, which is right above mine. He was suggesting that “hiding the tech” was a good thing, and I was saying that it was a ridiculous idea. I do not think Sony is “hiding the tech” to future-proof the PS3. I honestly think it was just poorly designed, and all this future-proofing mumbo-jumbo is just another one of the many lame excuses used by PS3 fanboys to justify the harder-to-develop-for system. Please get your own fanboyism in check before you come attacking mine.

Thanks again, and please pull up to the next window.
kiezer
on February 28, 2008 5:32 am

No problem fangirl. Now your saying the console was poorly designed, you think? Wow, are you a developer? Are you a electrical engineer that designs consoles? If so, maybe you should speak to Sony, get them to sack that silly ken kutaragi (oops, too late) and design the perfect machine for them.

I’m sure Sony know what they are doing, more than a rabid, obese fangirl like you. If we take a look back at time, we see the snes was hard to develop for, the n64 was hard to develop for, the saturn was hard to develop for, the PS2 was notoriously hard to develop for, and now the PS3 is harder to develop for.

Your precious Xbox console, is an excellent machine, but I do not want all my machines unified with the same architecture and components……. Different parts used inside, means unique developers will come up with the goods…… Team Ico, London Studios, Cambridge Studios and the like, as well as the previously mentioned TOP TIER developers. Cheap ass hacks will resort to giving PS3 owners half assed ports.

The Xbox will continue to get pc handmedown fps’s like last gen, and the PS3’s usual suspects of developers that enjoy a challenge (instead of the same monotony every day) will give us the ICO’s, SOTC’s, GOW’s, Motorstorm’s, Haze’s, COD4’s, Burnout’s, and the such.

I didn’t realize you were calling patrick out, but everything I say still stands, as from your 1st input your fangirlism wreaked through my computer screen.

Speak to me in November when PS3 has shared as much time being released as 360 had at the point it had games like Gears, Bioshock, Halo3 and the such. As I recall EA had their 1st 360 Madden offering running at 30fps, and several developers had trouble with getting 360 games up to scratch for a while.
Dan Landis
on February 28, 2008 5:49 am

Thank you for your kind words. N64 and Saturn were greatly outsold by their competitors, so the past doesn’t show any signs that “hard to develop for” means “better”.

People also don’t seem to take into account how multiplatform games affect the timeline of 360 vs PS3. COD4, for example, came out much earlier in the life cycle of the PS3 than the 360, even though it released at the same time on both systems. Don’t you think that would skew the comparison a bit? There are many factors that people just don’t consider because they are blinded by fanboyism, yet I make perfectly logical statements and that makes me automatically a “fangirl” because I don’t back your system. Congratulations go out for ignoring common sense.

Twelve cents is your change. Please come again.
LC
on February 28, 2008 7:26 am

lol this is awesome to see editors throwing down with us common folk like that!

Carry on.
Krispy Demon
on February 28, 2008 8:24 am

Patrick, I also said the original xbox got better graphics during it’s lifespan, not just the 360. The Xbox was basically a PC in a easy to use box from what I understand, so your arguments about the 360s multiple thingers are pointless.

Thanks, whoever that was for that great list of games that are going to bring the PS3 to the forefront of gaming awesomeness, but I seem to recall that GTA4 is a cross platform game, so I don’t see how it’s going to push PS3 hardware sales. Oh, and the 360 doesn’t have any quality exclusives coming out at all… I mean, Fable 2, Splinter Cell, Too Human, Ninja Gaiden… nope, all coming to the PS3, right?

Oh, and I love the FREE multiplayer that’s thrown around all the time. I’m sure that free multiplayer is great when you’re talking to your friends on UT… oh wait.. no voice support. Yeah, have fun with that.

As far as Dan Landis being a fanboy, I would have to disagree. While his views may be scewed towards the 360, it seems it’s more to do with facts and honest perception rather than fanboyism. Patrick, on the other hand… I’m not saying he’s the worst I’ve ever seen or anything, but I mean, this stuff that he comes up with sometimes defies logic. The PS3 is better because it’s a pain to develop for? Or how about the whole Devil May Cry 4 thing. The graphics on the PS3 are better, but you don’t notice unless you turn up the brightness on your tv and stand on your head. Yeah, that’s real objectivity there. I can accept when games are equally good on both systems. Hell, I like it, it’s better for gamers when we have more options, but to me Sony dropped the ball and is not a consumer friendly system in any way shape or form. They basically said going into this that people will buy their shit no matter what and they were wrong. Yes, the guy responsible for that has been canned, but it’s not like the system has had some sort of sudden change because of that.
Chad Lakkis
on February 28, 2008 8:43 am

Oh boy…
Discombobulator
on February 28, 2008 9:31 am

My money is on Dan. The man challenged Wolverine, but Dan got paid to take a dive. I think some Marvel execs got to Chad and paid him off. Where else do you get this sort of editor vs commenter action?
Chad Lakkis
on February 28, 2008 10:04 am

oh no, they are on to me…
Patrick Steen
on February 28, 2008 10:11 am

You’re right Dan, it could be used by some fanboy to suggest the “advantage of the PS3″ if taken out of context. That would be unfortunate.

Instead, it should be understood as a potential manufacturer’s aim: to produce a system that’s going to last and compete over the years. Sony’s and Krazy Ken’s thinking may be that creating a system with depth will provide continuing growth over the lengthy period they have laid down for it (10 years). Whether this is the correct way to develop a system is unsure.

What Sony should be called out on is the lack of PS3 tools before and after launch - taking almost a year to support third party developers is a shocking delay. It is also a failure to skimp on memory after spending so much money on the rest of the system.

However, producing a system with 6/7 “cores” (whilst also keeping the system cheap…almost) that might not be easy to get a hang of early on, could potentially have huge gains later in the consoles lifetime. It was not their intention to create a system that was difficult to develop for, it was their intention to develop a system that had considerable depth and a lengthy lifetime (10 years, not 4 or 5). That much is transparent.

Did Sony fail in this target? Did they place too much emphasis on lifetime rather than ease of use - yes, probably. They might just pay for this.

Keizer: Calling developer lazy because they weren’t given the tools to develop for a new system is very insulting to them. It’s all very well saying that “don’t know what they’re doing”, or “couldn’t be bothered” - but presenting a system with a completely new way of thinking, and without the tools to use its power to it potential is in no way their fault. It’s Sony’s fault for taking so long to get up to speed.

Further more, calling my fellow Journo Dan Landis a “fangirl” for disagreeing with what he thinks I’m saying, is both wrong and insulting.
kiezer
on February 28, 2008 6:24 pm

@Dan
Yes Dan, thankyou for backing up my point about Saturn and N64 being grossly outsold, and outsold by a machine that was easier than both to develop for. But on the same subject, but reversed…the notoriously hard to develop for PS2, absolutely obliterated all competitors by 100million units…Even one of the three richest companies in the world in MS, did not have the marketing muscle and business skills (in the hardware business) to out hussle Sony….In contrast, Sony came into the business against the two ONLY real console and game giants (Sega & Nintendo), and splattered them in sales on their 1st attempt with over 120million units sold…..More than both Snes and Genesis combined sold over their lifespan, when they were the only two players.

You criticized Sony’s hardware architecture, but failed to mention anything about 360’s UNRIVALLED fault rate with the RROD plague.

Fangirl, you need to look at things more subjectively….I’m not having a go at you because you don’t back my system, but moreso that your posts wreak of hypocrisy. Case in point is how you chose to bring up my Saturn, N64 point, but failed to mention PS2…You also fail to mention that PS3 is actually outselling it’s main competitor in a time frame relevance.

You also jump on PS3’s supposed design architecture flaws, and fail to mention your beloved 360’s 3billion+ problem. And how after 3 years, one of the richest companies in the world have failed to rectify the RROD plague. I bought a 360 in December, and by early Jan. I had the dreaded 3x RROD problem. You are not a developer, so basically you can comment as much as you like about PS3’s shortcomings…But it just means you look like a non-in the know fangirl that likes to guess the faults of a system you do not favor.

I, on the other hand, am a consumer, so as a consumer that bought a 360 that failed 3 weeks into it’s short life, I am entitled to express my FACTS….As RROD is a well documented FACTUAL 360 hardware architecture problem….Wheras, PS3’s hard to develop for theory is actually relative to actual developers. And if we read some of the past interviews from developers, some say the PS3 is hard to developer for, and others say it isn’t as hard as it’s made out to be. And to add to that, it is known to be much easier to develop for than PS2. (Again, according to REAL developers, but what would those idiots know, compared to you).

I don’t care what system you prefer, I have both, think both are great, but admittedly prefer PS controllers and exclusives….But at least when I express views on one system of another, I use facts, and don’t try to speculate on things I know nothing about.

Go get a job with Fox News if you wanna be a journo…..you’ll fit in real nice there.
Chad Lakkis
on February 28, 2008 6:33 pm

@kiezer,

Have you read any of the articles published by Dan Landis below?

http://www.ripten.com/2008/01/16/microsoft-had...

http://www.ripten.com/2008/01/07/xbox-live...

http://www.ripten.com/2008/01/03/rumor...

http://www.ripten.com/2007/12/28/...

My guess is that you have not. Please do some research before you run your mouth, otherwise the only person that ends up looking like a “fangirl” is you.

Chad-
Dan Landis
on February 28, 2008 6:45 pm

Kiezer,

I don’t see how I’m backing up your point. You listed 4 examples of systems that were hard to develop for, as if that was supposed to show that hard to develop for systems are successful. I pointed out that they’re not. I don’t know what kind of backpedaling you are trying to do there, but you are only making yourself look bad.

Yes, the RROD is horrible and the 360 sucks. I would not, nor did I ever, deny that. The system has a lifespan of a year before it craps out, but Microsoft at least admits there is a problem and replaces it for free. I went through 3 PSOnes and 3 PS2’s, and as much as those systems sucked, Sony never admitted there was a problem with them, so I paid out of pocket to get a replacement. At least the time that my 360 does work I have great games to play on it. My PS3, on the other hand, would sit there and be reliable, mainly because it would only be used to watch movies.

And no, I don’t need to look at things more “subjectively”. That’s what you are accusing me of doing right now. I think you mean “objectively”. If you learned anything in school and had a proper grasp of the English language, you would know the difference between these two words.

I don’t think I misrepresented the N64/Saturn subject at all. You mentioned them, and I simply pointed out that two of the 4 are not backing up your point. Basically, your examples are really just examples of your incompetence and illogical reasoning. Congratulations on that.

I don’t see how I have to be a developer in order to express my feelings about the PS3. You are also not a developer, yet you continue to slam the 360 and praise the PS3. Fine examples of hypocrisy there — one more thing you should be proud of. I don’t recall any developers complaining about the 360 and it’s difficulty to develop for, but this article alone shows you a fine example of them not exactly liking the PS3. Valve’s head cheese even called the PS3 a disaster that should be recalled. It seems I don’t have to be a developer myself because they all seem to think the same way I do.

You claim to own and love both systems, and yet you continue to bash the 360 in favor of the PS3, which makes your statements seem, well, like total lies. You are a fanboy that can’t admit it, and I feel bad for you.

If you wish to continue attacking me and calling me names, please take a few courses in English or reading comprehension first so you know what the fuck you’re talking about. Thanks, come again.
Chad Lakkis
on February 28, 2008 7:07 pm

@ Krispy,

I am not one who often digs deeply into the world of tech specs because in all honesty, my view is that if it looks good to my eyes then I don’t really give a shit about anything else.

In regards to the DMC4 article Patrick wrote, which is being discussed on this thread, it was my understanding that the conclusion arrived at was that both versions looked the same.

To be clear, Patrick stated the following:

“There aren’t many differences between these two. You might be mistaken into thinking that the Xbox 360’s textures are of a higher resolution. This is untrue. By altering the sharpness settings for the PS3 you will be able to exactly replicate the Xbox 360 image.”

He then went on to add:

“The texture resolutions are the same on both consoles.”

Hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings.

Chad-
LC
on February 28, 2008 7:17 pm

rotfl… You know I feel like I should add something relevant to this convo but I am indifferent to the subject of supposed development difficulty.

seems to me every new generation your gonna have some whiny ass developer complaining about doing his job. if the past is any indicator and the complexity of technology only being made more complex then it will continue to infinity. who will cry next?

who cleans your fangurl shredder dan? it’s looking pretty messy in here…
Dan Landis
on February 28, 2008 7:33 pm

Wolverine cleans it. He is my bitch now.
DavidGX
on February 28, 2008 8:05 pm

It seems now whenever sony releases a system that’s a bitch to code for people try to defend them by calling the developers lazy. You’d think people would be able to be a bit less fanboyish and call sony out on their hardware design. Hell knows I could sit here and rant about the RROD for hours (I’m on my 3rd 360) but at least the damn thing is developer-friendly.
LC
on February 29, 2008 1:14 am

what does it mean to be hard to develop for? is that relevant to us as consumers? they call these guys engineers for a reason, its there job to make it “the software” work.

to me when a developer says something to this affect its often involving porting sloppy code to a different architecture. to bad easily stealing peoples money isn’t really easy for these 3rd parties who port there games to every system possible and usually there efforts show.

if it makes these guys happy to complain about it fine but hey I wasn’t really all that interested in giving them 60 bucks for high tech virtual Frisbee or is that boomerang simulator anyway…

the ps3 is no different than any other console in the past, its new, its different and time marches on and this argument remains the same.

Dan the magneto Fangurl destroyer? lol I Dub thee!
Cenobia
on February 29, 2008 4:54 am

Oh snap. These comments went south fast. It’s time to bail outta this article before the internet implodes.

But before I do…
David - More difficult isn’t always better, but its harder to build a Nuke then it is to build a bullet. Both do their job, but one does it better. Progress = increased difficulty (ok, a nuke is a bad example).
Kiezer - fangirl is a little harsh

and PS3>360
HAHAHAHAH! I win!

Seriously though, lets stop arguing before someone strokes out.
Chad Lakkis
on February 29, 2008 5:10 am

Cenobia,

Thank you for being the voice of reason. Your no prize is in the mail.

Chad-
Krispy Demon
on February 29, 2008 6:45 pm

LC - Yes, difficulty to develop for is directly related to us as gamers. How can you think it doesn’t affect us when PS3 gamers have to deal with things like the Orange Box fiasco. Yes, it is there job to “make it work” but at what cost? I know that game prices are pretty much the same across the systems right now, so this is a totally pointless statement, but in the spirit of this string of comments on this story, I’m going to make it anyway. Would you be willing to spend X amount of money more for a PS3 game over the same game on the 360? Even if they were the same on every level that an average player of that game would care about, would you be willing to spend ten bucks more? Twenty? That’s something everyones nuke vs. musket arguments seem to be missing. If I wanted to kill my neighbor I could do it for fifty bucks with a gun or a few million with a nuclear warhead. That’s basically what developers are being faced with, spending more money to develop on the PS3 to get to the same point they could get to on the 360 for less.

As far as developers constantly complaining about the inexorable tide of advancement, I don’t see that being the case. No one bitched about the Xbox being a pain, and it was, from what I can recall, a more powerful machine than the PS2. The 360 is more powerful than the Xbox, and no one seems to be complaining about jumping from one to the other. Yes, people have bitched about Sony’s crazyness since time immemorial, but before they had numbers to back them up and that made it worth developers time to develop for them.
Patrick Steen
on February 29, 2008 8:58 pm

Krispy: Firstly, to your third comment. I believe you’re missing the context of what I’m saying. Sony might see that creating a console with depth could be advantageous to the console’s 8-10 year lifespan. Moreover, I didn’t say this was the right tactic, and depth without sufficient tools is a failure. It is the lack of tools and the nature of the split memory in the PS3 which is the most problematic to developers. The Cell’s usefulness should grow in time.

Nor did I say DMC4 looks better on the PS3, which Chad has covered for me. In reality, since the Xbox 360 has 2xAA and the PS3 has an approximation to 2xAA - the 360 version could be called “definitive”.

To your fourth comment - multi-threaded coding is going to have to become the standard - and the PS3’s current failure is that it forces this on developers, whereas the Xbox 360 can still perform well with single-threaded coding.

It is predicted that coding for multiple threads (on multiple cores) can be upto 5x as expensive to develop, and it’s unsurprising many developers are reticent to move on from single threads. Could this price difference be shown in DMC4’s differing launch prices (£10 more expensive on the PS3)?

Multi-threaded coding will start to become standard for the Xbox 360 towards the end of this generation, if not very soon - and since PC’s are also moving in this direction, it’s an inevitable move. Regrettably, Sony is trying to force the move forward without a natural evolution - and crucially without providing sufficient tools to developers early on (and without providing money to third party developers to take these steps, like it is with it’s first/second party devs). This forcefulness could be Sony’s downfall.
LC
on February 29, 2008 9:12 pm

the orange box was farmed out by ea to a lesser developer because gabe wasn’t up to the task.

and they already made us pay more money for games, remember they jacked the price up and then for the consumer gave us for pay dlc.

I just don’t see how a developer crying about a system being hard to develop for is relevant, fixed hardware with set limitations is what consoles have always been, hows the ps3 any different?

There have already been a number of good games for the ps3 and more will come. the good game developers suck it up and get the job done and make great games. so what does it matter if a few whiny fangurl developers like gabe are pro microsoft? what does there bitching mean to us? how many gamers who go and make these arguments could make a game on the supposed easier platform?
Dan Landis
on February 29, 2008 9:51 pm

This comment thread is now closed. If you wish to continue debating (arguing, flaming) about the next-gen console war, please do so in the forums:

http://www.ripten.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=57

Thanks!

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.