By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Sony can wait, but Microsoft must announce a new console

Araknie on 07 July 2012

That's not the cost of the disc part, that's why i said developers and publishers.

I just saw, Creatures, TobyGames, ZackScott, every Machinima guy pratically cry every time they have to change disc in 360 versions of games. POR QUE and GODDAMMITS have gotten the Xbox360 sales of L.A.Noire and Max Payne 3 lower then expected.

Now there's also the WiiU and i think the situation of changing disc only because a console still hold on DVDs that are right from 1999 in 2012 will be even less bearable.

I'm feeling like SSoH hated for sarcasm in his firts days on youtube, and don't tell me it wasn't clear if it's clear it's not sarcasm.

I do cold jokes all the time, like my thread all about the Wii third parties was a big huge sarcasm thing, just waiting to Project Zero 2 Wii Edition coming in Europe to say i have 10 1st and 102nd party exclusives, witch is true but i tricked you.

I will say it now here, here's the sarcasm parts of this thread: Title, "You know production costs.", "Microsoft has a big problem now, has still DVDs." The rest is serious.

Have fun, Peppy out.




Spiders den are not for men.

My gaming channel: Stefano and the Spiders.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MultiSpider87?feature=mhum

Around the Network
Persistantthug on 07 July 2012

If XBOX 360 contintues to sell well in the midst of the current bad economy, especially after a price cut.....then I don't see any reason for Microsoft to launch an XBOX 3 in 2013.

Bottom line....Microsoft has shown that they don't care if they make good games for XBOX 360 fans to play....they only really care that you keep paying for XBOX LIVE, Kinect.....

 

and care that they keep watching Usher.

lol

 

True story....unfortunately.   lol



d21lewis on 08 July 2012
Adinnieken said:
Aielyn said:
Adinnieken said:
The Xbox 360 has not been the weaker of the two systems.  If anything it is on par with the PS3 in terms of performance.  The PS3 does have the better CPU, but that CPU is hurt by the memory architecture and GPU.  Contrast that with the Xbox 360, which offers a better GPU and unified memory and its tri-core processor with six hardware threads compares rather favorably to the PS3.

The reason the Xbox 360 is the lead platform for most third-party games is because it is the easiest of the two to program for.  Getting a game to work on the Xbox 360 is meaningless when porting it to the PS3 because in order to get the game to work on the PS3 you need to build the game so it takes advantage of the SPEs, that requires significant management of processing and resources. 

Some early 3rd-party games in the PS3 life-cycle were direct ports of the Xbox 360 version and they were horrible.  Instead of taking advantage of the SPEs, the games used the sole PowerPC core (PPE) for all the work.  The Cell isn't like a Intel processor with 8 cores or the Xbox 360s Xenon with 3 cores.  They would be symmetrical processors.  No, the Cell is a parallel processor that uses the PPE to manage the code running in the SPEs.  There is a lot more work involved in getting code to run on the PS3, which is why some games are led with the PS3 rather than the Xbox 360.

Your logic doesn't make sense - one wouldn't develop a game for the easier-to-develop-for platform first, because it would mean more additional effort to make it work on the other console afterwards. The only reason to do that is if you're willing to drop support for the harder one, which evidence shows didn't happen - pretty much all of the big titles that weren't first-party or second-party were put on both systems.

Just as you don't make a game for the higher-power system first, because then you have to do extra work to get it working on the weaker system.

The PS3 was harder to develop for, sure, but the reason why it wasn't the lead platform was because it would be harder to port to the 360 from the PS3 than vice versa. And that means that there were power considerations, because there really wasn't anything else to distinguish between them.

It's 6 of one, a half a dozen of another. 

The benefit to leading with the Xbox 360 is that you release a game to retail sooner for at least one platform.  The problem with leading on the Xbox 360 is that you can set performance levels that aren't obtainable on the PS3.

The benefit to leading with the PS3 is that you get all of your problems out of the way first, but you may end up with longer development time.

Most games where the Xbox 360 has been the lead have looked reasonably as good on both platforms and played as well on both platforms.  One notable exception is Bayonetta, which lead on the Xbox 360 but had significant performance issues on the PS3.  Whereas most games where the PS3 has been the lead have looked good on the PS3, but have looked poor on the Xbox 360.  Final Fantasy XIII and L.A. Noire being the most notable, which graphically looked significantly worse than their PS3 counterparts.

The PS3 is not the more powerful system.  The Cell may be the more powerful CPU but only marginally, especially when constrained by the memory architecture and GPU.  The only thing the PS3 offers is the opportunity to utilize Blu-Ray, which means uncompressed textures, full-motion video, and other graphical elements.  The Xbox 360's GPU runs rings around the PS3.  Only within the past few years has MSAA given PS3 developers a respectable means of AA at the cost of a softer/blurrier, image.

http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/vs/ps3-vs-xbox-360-gpu-specs.htm

The GPU specs for the PS3 actually are reduced, if you read through you'll see where they talk about the GPU clock speed and memory throughput. 


I got FF13 on the PS3 because I heard that the FMV's were grainier on the 360.  From the research I did before purchase, that was the only difference (aside from multiple discs).  I grabbed L.A. Noire for the 360.  I saw the comparison showing reflections on the PS3 that weren't on the 360.  I don't know what was going on in those comparisons because the all of the details they said weren't there were present and accounted for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZT8lB0icC8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL61490AC75866755F



Mr Puggsly on 08 July 2012
Persistantthug said:

If XBOX 360 contintues to sell well in the midst of the current bad economy, especially after a price cut.....then I don't see any reason for Microsoft to launch an XBOX 3 in 2013.

Bottom line....Microsoft has shown that they don't care if they make good games for XBOX 360 fans to play....they only really care that you keep paying for XBOX LIVE, Kinect.....

 

and care that they keep watching Usher.

lol

 

True story....unfortunately.   lol

The bad economy doesn't seem to have had much impact on the gaming industry. Which isn't surprising since its relatively cheap entertainment.

Obviously the best reason to launch a new console ASAP is to have an edge in the market. Regardless, I'm sure MS will keep supporting the 360 for years thanks to Live subscribers.

MS doesn't need to make good games per se. They just need to keep giving us GREAT games as they always have.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

usrevenge on 08 July 2012

multiplatform games are better on 360 almost always because they are made for 360 and ported to PS3.

make a game on 360, easy port to PS3, PS3 quality suffers ( usually not to much but games like skyrim are very bad on it)
making a game for PS3 is usually pointless. if you look at it almost every game made for PS3 then ported to 360 is from japan, where it makes sense to do so as the 360 doesn't have a strong market there.



Around the Network
Mnementh on 08 July 2012
d21lewis said:
Nintendo had to go ahead and release the Wii U because their tech was way outdated. Personally, I think the Wii U should have been released a while back.
  

I think this was the plan. It seems so stupid to announce a new console at E3 LAST YEAR and not bringing it to shelves at the following christmas. I think the release of the WiiU was planned last year. But after the mediocre reception the announcement got, they decided to get back to the design table and work on the console a bit more.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

kain_kusanagi on 08 July 2012

The cost for multiple discs is a drop in the bucket for developers and anyone who complains about swapping discs is a cry baby who doesn't remember the CD era.



S.T.A.G.E. on 08 July 2012
Mr Puggsly said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Araknie said:

We all have seen that Sony, with exclusives, can still pull out some power from that marvelous PS3. Beyond it's the perfect example if it's true that the game runs all in real time. They can wait still at least 2 years before the PS4, there's no problem.

Microsoft has a big problem now, has still DVDs. 

You know PS3 has Blue-Ray they can reach 50gb of space if dual-layered and same Nintendo on the WiiU with their original kind of disc that works the same of Blue-Rays.

Now the developers will think twice about doing versions of big huge games like a Rage or a L.A. Noire or a Max Payne on the 360 where 2 out of 3 home consoles in the market requires only one disc. You know production costs.

I think, and i'm sure about this, that Microsoft has a console almost ready they could  show at this E3, but it will be like WiiU in 2011, they can't show a game for now.

So they wait like until they have something, they can show the next console in 3 occasions that i really hope, for them and for the market, they consider: Tokyo Game Show (because it's a chance to gain in a market never pratically considered by Japanese people), the March GDC (great for developers to see something) and E3. (well, duh)

What do you think, it's going to be real and in one of these events? Do you think too they risk to do like SEGA and force the life time of the 360 if they wait over this time?

Let me know.

These multiple discs arguments are ridiculous. Nobody worried about production costs when Sega CD, PS1, PS2, and PC were getting multi discs games. Yet for some reason its a huge issue this gen? I think PS3 fans are to blame for this new "problem."

So you feel developers are going to think twice about putting games on the 360 because of storage limitations on DVDs. But I don't think using multiple discs is a big deal, especially if the platform is great at moving software. Most of the games you mentioned have performed better on the 360 than PS3. Most multiplat games in general perform better on the 360.

Look at The Witcher 2 for example. The developers apparently wanted to focus on one platform. Safe bet they chose the 360 because it has performed significantly better at selling WRPGs and its easier to work with according to developers. Which goes to show the amount of discs used isn't the biggest factor for choosing a platform.


The 360 is easier to develop for, this is true and WRPG's sell better on it. The fact still remains that Mass Effect 3 disc swapping on the 360 was f'n annoying and the Witcher 2 would've had more extras than it had it been on Blu Ray. 

I agree the disc swap thing was annoying in ME2 and 3. But what bothers me most is I still have to swap discs even if both discs are installed on the hard drive. I imagine MS is mostly to blame for that.

The 360 version of Witcher 2 is the PC game with all the extras and they did it with two discs. I suppose there could have been MORE extras on a Blu Ray. But there could have also been more on the 360 if they used 3 discs I suppose. Not a very good argument.

Either way, Sony didn't prove Blu Ray was essential this gen. Worst of all, the discs have a ton of storage but the console still requires a hard drive. Which many games use for required installs.


Sony didnt prove that DVD's were useless, but they proved that they were the next essential step before going digital. Blu Rays hold quite a bit of space, but when it comes to evolving into the full-on digital age, because of how large games are getting, you will need a console that has at least 1 TB in the HDD. After watching Blu Ray, I can't go back to normal DVD's when watching movies either. The PS3's HD would fill up faster on manditory installs because of the amount of large games the PS3 has and demands compared to the 360 as well. Games made specifically for the 360 generally don't go beyond one disc, but Lost Odyssey was one that I believe took four discs.



Aielyn on 08 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
The cost for multiple discs is a drop in the bucket for developers and anyone who complains about swapping discs is a cry baby who doesn't remember the CD era.

This is the exact sort of attitude that can lead to a developer or publisher crashing and burning - the conclusion that the consumer is at fault if they don't like something.

You may not have noticed, but nobody here is actually saying that they, personally, have a problem with having to swap discs. They're saying that it's an issue in general, as in consumers don't like having to do it.

But more than that, it's not necessarily the physical swapping process. The problem is that the game has to be adjusted to make disc-swapping feasible. Especially if it you're talking about more than just a couple of discs.



Stinky on 08 July 2012

While Blu-Ray is a capacious format, the loading and seek speed as implemented on the PS3 is decidedly glacial. As I understand it, some devs duplicate assets across the disc filesystem to overcome seek issues, along with mandatory installs. Whereas the DVD as implemented on the 360 is only marginally slower than loading from an HD install of the same image.

So it's not so cut and dried, as the extra work involved to get acceptable speed from PS3 discs would likely be larger than the trivial cost of an extra DVD press thrown into the existing package..