bit-gamer.net

Tretton: Developers creating on PS3 first

Tretton: Developers creating on PS3 first

Sony Boss Jack Tretton thinks that the majority of developers will soon be focusing on the PS3.

Sony of America President, Jack Tretton has said in an IGN interview that he thinks developers are now predominantly starting to develop for the PlayStation 3 first, only porting to the Xbox 360 and PC platforms later on - a reveral of the earlier trend seen in games like The Orange Box and Assassin's Creed.

"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.

27 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
liratheal 20th December 2007, 07:51 Quote
Yeah, of course they are.

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?
metarinka 20th December 2007, 08:02 Quote
it seems like traditional PR spin, making any news good news. However I hope the ps3 gets some good games soon, that thing is a beast and IMO the best all around console package.

not to mention the playstation network is free unlike xbox live
metarinka 20th December 2007, 08:02 Quote
it seems like traditional PR spin, making any news good news. However I hope the ps3 gets some good games soon, that thing is a beast and IMO the best all around console package.

not to mention the playstation network is free unlike xbox live
metarinka 20th December 2007, 08:05 Quote
seems like typical marketing spin. making any news into good news. However I like this approach as the ps3 might finally get some games that really exploit the graphics engine and tweak performance (plus they'll be inherently less buggy) .

I prefer the ps3 over xbox because the PS network is free compared to xbox live. That's a deal breaker right there
metarinka 20th December 2007, 08:27 Quote
hrmm that was odd
cjoyce1980 20th December 2007, 08:36 Quote
If this is going to turn into a psn vs xbox live post, then xbox live will win all the time.

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
Tyinsar 20th December 2007, 08:45 Quote
I want some of what he's smoking - though on second thought - I like seeing reality too much.

I'm not saying it's impossible but I'd like to see some proof of this reversal. Until then ...
AcidJiles 20th December 2007, 09:01 Quote
hilarious, man can sony spin crap.
they start on ps3 because it takes longer to do it because the hardware is really hard to program for.
jezmck 20th December 2007, 09:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe "Proof-reader" Martin
...said in an IGN interview that he things developers are now...
Arkanrais 20th December 2007, 09:19 Quote
Quote:
and then port down to other platforms
Sneaky buggers trying to subliminally make other consoles look inferior.
cjoyce1980 20th December 2007, 09:41 Quote
with visual studio and XNA developers other have to write the code once and they can produce a PC and 360 version, so i would thing that the PS3 version would be last on anyones list.

simple math for you, 360 and pc install base verse ps3 install base.
CardJoe 20th December 2007, 09:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jezmck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe "Proof-reader" Martin
...said in an IGN interview that he things developers are now...

Leave me be, I haven't even had my morning cup of tea yet :P
lewchenko 20th December 2007, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
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.



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.
Amon 20th December 2007, 10:25 Quote
Tretton's opinion is not without merit. If companies are wading in the water of PS3 game development potential and it doesn't work out, then it would be a no-brainer to switch platforms. It shouldn't seen as a 'downgrade', per se, as he would suggest. But as far as production difficulty and cost are concerned, it's certainly a step several notches down.
liratheal 20th December 2007, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewchenko
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
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.



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.
DougEdey 20th December 2007, 16:42 Quote
It's the matchmaking servers which cost money. I'm happy with paying for 12 months XBL for 30 notes, it's good for what I get out of it
devdevil85 20th December 2007, 17:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
If this is going to turn into a psn vs xbox live post, then xbox live will win all the time.

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.
Previous Quote by themax:

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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
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
first off, how many linux pc's do you hear of getting a virus; None. Secondly, that is the lamest justification I have ever heard for owning XBL.....

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
with visual studio and XNA developers other have to write the code once and they can produce a PC and 360 version, so i would thing that the PS3 version would be last on anyones list.

simple math for you, 360 and pc install base verse ps3 install base.
From what I have heard, XNA is a joke. Ask any real game developer; so stop bringing it up.
themax 20th December 2007, 17:52 Quote
So now the PS3 becomes the lead development console and people think it is spin? For the longest people said the 360 being the lead platform was proof of it's dominance. It's odd how the true spin comes from the community half the time with this "console war".
DougEdey 20th December 2007, 18:24 Quote
XNA is exactly the same as Game studio, it's good for ideas only. Nothing else.

Anyway, as was mentioned, development is starting on PS3 because it takes much longer to train people for it.
Lucidity 20th December 2007, 18:54 Quote
It isn't the lead console for development. Every game that is multi-platform is either made first on 360 then ported to PS3, or made at the same time for both, only now developers are starting earlier for the PS3 because it is a crap platform for development and it takes much longer to make good games on versus the 360. I own both systems and I cannot tell you how many cross platform games have either been delayed for the PS3 or had a crappy port. The PS3 from a development and business standpoint is utter crap, and if Sony didn't have good first party developers, and Japanese loyalty, the system would be a total failure. Also Jack Tretton is so full of **** his eyes are brown.
talladega 20th December 2007, 18:59 Quote
i really would like to know more about this anti virus that PS3 users have to have so their systems dont crash. lol

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.
Carbon_Arc 20th December 2007, 19:58 Quote
I often wonder what planet the Sony HQ is on, because they seem to have a somewhat different view of things to the rest of us.

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!!!"
devdevil85 20th December 2007, 20:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbon_Arc
"Don't fear, we are out-selling the Wii 3 to 1!!!
When did they say that? Secondly, with the (IMO overhyped, marketing-friendly) Wii being $250 and the ("poorly selling, there's no games for it" PS3 being $400-$500 and yet selling 1 unit for every 3 Wii's is actually a compliment IMO. Just wait a couple months when games finally start coming to the console. It's the same w/ 360 being able to sell almost 1 unit for every 2-3 Wii's...not bad....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbon_Arc
Every new game will be on PS3 first!!!
First off, never take a statement from a CEO to be 100%, we all know that...and secondly he didn't say "every developer"...so stop filling in words that weren't there....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbon_Arc
consumers don't want backwards compatibility!!!"
Not everyone owns/owned a PS2 (myself), and with people complaining about price all the time, now they have a choice to make.....I, myself, would buy a PS3 for NEW games.....if I really felt like I needed to play PS2 games then I would either A) find a used 60GB or B) be patient and get a 80GB at the next pricedrop or C) would find a cheap, used PS2 for around $30 on craiglslist or ebay.
DXR_13KE 20th December 2007, 21:49 Quote
i am not bashing any console here but i can say that i will take what this guy is saying with a sack of salt....
Da Dego 20th December 2007, 22:03 Quote
Meh...I bought a PS3 recently and I honestly couldn't be happier with it. Granted, I live in the states, so backwards compatibility is there, fully working and quite nice. The BR player is a nice bonus, but I'll tell you what - the hard drive standard was the determining factor. As game sizes increase, so does loading (i.e. mass effect).

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>
CardJoe 20th December 2007, 22:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Dego

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
metarinka 20th December 2007, 22:36 Quote
ouch I somehow started the flamewar, I own all the consoles and I just think sony is the only one who got their online network "right" although the wii also has a nice online network, but to be honest I have never tried it. The big difference being the ps3 and xbox network are almost identical but the ps3 manages to do it for free. There's really no excuse for a pay to play network. I understand pay to play gaming like WoW, but I don't see the justification in making users pay to use the network. Do the math over the course of the consoles lifetime the an xboxlive account will exceed the price difference between a ps3 and xbox
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums