|
|
Tretton: Developers creating on PS3 first
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 20th December 2007
Sony Boss Jack Tretton thinks that the majority of developers will soon be focusing on the PS3.
"We are now starting to see developers creating games on PS3 and then porting them to other platforms such as EA's Burnout Paradise," Tretton said to IGN.
"Developers are telling us that they are starting to create their games on PS3 first and take advantage of the hardware capabilities and then port down to other platforms so we are seeing tremendous progress from the third party community in terms of what they are able to do with our development kits."
It isn't clear just how much of that statement is just PR hyperbole and how much of it is backed up by actual fact, but if true then it would certainly bode well for Sony and the much-derided PlayStation 3.
So far, many multiplatform games released on the PlayStation 3 were released earlier on as Xbox 360 or PC titles and the porting process was often lengthy and difficult to get right because of the radically different system architecture on the PlayStation 3. Reversing that trend may mean that PC gamers can look forward to dozens of poor PS3 ports instead of dozens of dodgy 360 ports - yay!
Either, next year looks to be a very interesting time for both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 - but who do you think will come out on top? Let us know in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (27)Stats: 0.162 seconds
Probably because coding for the madness that is basically PPC is not easy, thus takes longer.
Of course they're going to start on the hardest task first.
Is Tretton a bit of a thickie?
not to mention the playstation network is free unlike xbox live
not to mention the playstation network is free unlike xbox live
I prefer the ps3 over xbox because the PS network is free compared to xbox live. That's a deal breaker right there
How many ps2 or ps3 games can you play without lag or not able to find a server because the developer can no longer support online play becuase their finances don't allow it????, about half if you're lucky and know this as I own a PS3, along with my wii and an xbox 360. (yes I'm one of those).
PSN does not even offer on an equal plain compared to xbox live. Microsft has dedicated servers so you can play any xbox or 360 game and there is no time limit on how long the developer will support online play.
Like most we do like to admit when Microsoft has done something right, but when it comes to instant online play, the xbox live has championed this area, and it's difficult to see anyone else beating them without doing exactly what they have.
Microsoft and xbox haters may laugh at this, but at least I know that Microsoft won't be releasing an anti-virus product for the 360, like sony has had to, (so much for open systems).
For console online gaming a closed system is better. There is no messing around and no fuss, but now whenever I turn on my PS3, will it be this time some sony hating Microsoft loving monkey will screw up my PS3 with a virus..... and to be honest Trend isn't the best product out there and just how long it is going to be free for..... maybe that £40 per year for peace of mind its worth more than most thing
I'm not saying it's impossible but I'd like to see some proof of this reversal. Until then ...
they start on ps3 because it takes longer to do it because the hardware is really hard to program for.
simple math for you, 360 and pc install base verse ps3 install base.
Leave me be, I haven't even had my morning cup of tea yet :P
You are so wrong its not even funny. The vast majority of online games for the 360 are peer to peer, so no dedicated server is required. This is why you can only play upto 16 people max in most cases... this is also why some games lag so badly on xbox live, and the voice comms are rubbish. The only good thing about Live is the cross game friends list.... and thats it.
MS do not pay for dedicated servers for games that run under MS LIVE. Why on earth would you think that ? !!!!!!
Dedicated servers can be provided under LIVE, but must be funded by the developer if deemed necessary.
To make the idea of paying for online gaming seem more reasonable.
Shame the idea is utter bovine excrement.
What the Playstation 2 (Not 3, ok, PS2) had for online was not a community. It was decentralized and at developer discression. That was the key difference last generation. You can't sit there and honestly say that PS3 games will be pulled from online on the PLAYSTATION NETWORK, because it happened on the Playstation 2 (which again had no centralized online portal/matchmaking).
Also you use messaging as a strong point? Ok maybe in a single player game it's cool to send a message once in a while, but how many times are you going to seriously stop in the middle of a TF2 Match, Halo 3, or CoD4 match to send your a buddy a message? I hope that is zero, otherwise you probably end up with more deaths because your using that awesome messaging feature in the middle of an online game. How come Sony can offer Video Chat, Voice chat in-game, Voice-chat outside of the game, Friends Lists, Messaging outside of games, Free Demos (You don't need a Gold account for priority nor wait for 3-5 days if you are Silver), Free Online play, and I have yet to be hit with ads? All for free. I pay for Xbox Live Gold, and I still get a giant Mt. Dew or Doritos advert. If Dorito's and Coke are paying the bill at MS why am I paying as well? So ok, Sony doesn't offer it in-game, I can't remember the last time I accept an invite to Halo 3 while in the middle Call of Duty 4 because why the hell do I wanna switch games just because I got an invite?
Also, having seen how long it takes to join a match on Halo3 I can 100% say that the match doesn't come as "instant[ly]" as you say it does.....
Honestly, this is wasted argument. If people like DougEdey are willing to spend $50/yr on a service they deem "worth it" then all power to them. Me, on the other hand, expect it for free, and I see PS3 winning me over in this arena.
Anyway, as was mentioned, development is starting on PS3 because it takes much longer to train people for it.
whoever made that up must have found a new drug. wow......
maybe theyre talking about the internet content filter by Trend Micro which just blocks sites kids arent supposed to see?
maybe run into a wall. your brain may get back into place.
I guess they have to say these things to keep the PR people happy, but honestly, they are starting to sound like the Iraqi information minister at times.
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg
"Don't fear, we are out-selling the Wii 3 to 1!!! Every new game will be on PS3 first!!! consumers don't want backwards compatibility!!!"
Tretton is of course spinning - he's a CEO. If it were any other company we'd be no more surprised. But he very well may be on to something - not because of Cell or because of the beastly power of the PS3, but because of storage ability. To know EVERY user has at LEAST 20GB of HDD space to work with - it really does make games "move" better to be able to count on that cache space, it allows devs to be able to design mods as there's someplace to store them... it was a forward thinking move and I think that by and large, aside from maybe Penny Arcade, most people in the games press haven't quite "got it" yet - the benefits will be more apparent as titles get more graphically or worldly detailed and caching becomes more important.
Developers ARE starting to use that more (UT3 for example), and I think that in that particular light, the games WILL have to be "dumbed down" to consoles that don't have the ability to count on an HDD. That, or you'll start seeing XB360 games that say "HDD required," which MS won't be too happy about due to all the systems it sold without an HDD - it'll look like its not supporting its own products.
Now, let the flaming commence - a person in the media CHOSE to buy a PS3.
</grabs armor and shield to protect from the pitchforks>
What's telling though is that practically EVERYONE at TrustedReviews and Bit-tech tried to talk you out of it. :P