So wait. Did you actually get to see the PS3 version of the game? Cuz that guy's weak statements aren't exactly reassuring.

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.

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.

Thanks for clarifying.

You're quite welcome, jackdoe.

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

im getting this anyway for the ps3 ,when you make a game for a system there always going to be problems.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

xbox will alway be better than playstation

playstation3 is a over priced dvd player

@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.

@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.

That's correct as of now David for the SPU's, but don't forget the PPU. So it's 7.

Doesn't the PPU just act as a traffic cop for the SPU's though?

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.

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.

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

"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?

im with hank on this one. but let me put his words into a straight up statement. ps3 sucks. 360 is better. thank you.

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.

@ 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...

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.