CommonMan said:
TRios_Zen said:
nordlead said:
1) The console is the hardest to develop for. This doesn't mean the software has to suck, but it does mean developers need to put in more effort than the minimum amount possible.
2) It isn't the lead console, so developers may not feel that they should invest as much money into making the game up to standards (see point 1, they need to do more work than absolute minimum)
3) developers are lazy and/or running out of money. With all the losses being posted, they may be under strict orders not to go over budget. This would prevent them from fixing problems that go above and beyond point 1.
@question tacked on end
It is best to design first on the most limited system and then port to the more capable system. This however is very hard to figure out in this situation. You have less cores (therfore less threading) on the X360, so from that standpoint, it makes sense to develope on the system with less threads, and less complexity and then port up. However, the X360 is more advanced in other areas (flexible memory) so it would make sense to start on the PS3. Obviously I don't know enough about both peices of hardware to make an educated decision, but the general rule of thumb is start on the limited hardware and port up. Also, there may be other factors like dev software quality that factors into which system to start on.
|
While I think the vast majority of what you have said here is true, I wonder (@ bolded specifically); what fault, if any, should Sony shoulder here?
While I am SURE there are lazy developers out there just looking to make a quick buck, the majority I would guess are much more ethical folk who take pride in there work...a fact that very few VGChartz folks would admit (anyone who summarily dismisses Valve is ridiculous IMO). This is not aimed at you specifically, but the lazy developers excuse is handed out like candy at halloween here.
As a happy PS3 owner though I wonder why so many people give Sony a pass here...far as I am concerned they are as much to blame for the difficulty of their hardware as any developer who uses it is. If I owned only a PS3 and had to pass up games I wanted because of this, I'd hold them equally accountable for this problem.
Probably not a popular comment here, but oh well.
|
I am also a happy PS3 owner that posed this very same question, and was ripped up one side and down the other for it. I was told in no uncertain terms that it's 80% lazyness on the developers and 20% lack of understanding of the hardware. In no way can we dare hold Sony in any way responsible. Yeck. . . I wash my hands of this.
|
I'll go on a limb here and blame the devs. Why? Cause Sony told them time and time again, make the game on the PS3 first with the 360 in mind you'll have no problems porting it over. What do they do? Make it on the 360 and run into problems when they make their PS3 version. I myself would figure devs would have finished up their games in the pipeline that programmed on the 360 first, but I guess not, or they in a sense are lazy and program on the 360 first to get it out of the way and run into problems on the PS3 later. Like, I know before you could chalk up Sony cause of the CPU they put in, but ultimately, the CPU wasn't he biggest problem early on, it was the unified shader/ram vs dedicated shaders/ram. Going from dedicated to unified works, going unified to dedicated doesn't. But at this point in the game, there's no reason why ANY dev is starting a multiplatform game on the 360 unless Microsoft is paying for it (Fallout 3 for instance, though I recall reading this on the interwebs, could be false).
