nightsurge said:
I don't get it. Most multiplatform games I have played always seem to get their updates, patches, bug fixes, etc out first on Xbox Live.
Is he saying MS charges for them to have updates? Because if so, doesn't Sony charge for bandwidth which updates will use?
I guess I am not following what he is saying from the small quotes out of context provided in the OP. Someone want to expand on this? I was always under the impression that developers loved XBL more than PSN for a plethora of reasons.
|
It's probably moreso a limit on the size of these updates. Team Fortress 2 has become a completely different game over the years thanks to numerous large updates tweaking the classes and adding new content. Few games recieve that level of support after release.
An even better example is the Left 4 Dead series. Both Left 4 Dead and its sequel saw entirely new campaigns released for free through Steam around six months after release (Crash Course for L4D1, The Passing for L4D2), while Valve were forced to charge for this content on XBL (they went with the minimum price MS allows - 560 MS points). Unlike with Team Fortress, at least Valve did released this content on 360, probably because it was a single large release rather than numerous mid-sized releases.
Valve provides post-launch support for their titles like no other, so its not surprising they'd have more issues with any stringent update policies Microsoft may have.
As for whether developers prefer XBL over PSN, it really depends on what the developer wants to do. PSN's more open structure provides more flexibility for developers who wish to approach online gaming, stat tracking, etc. in unconventional ways, while XBL provides a more standardized and more user friendly set up that allows any developer to easily implement such features into their products. If you're going for a more traditional online experience, XBL makes that really easy, which is why many developers prefer that platform. Valve in this case prefers PSN, given it allows them to implement Steam into Portal 2, allowing for back-end patching alongside the PC version and thus cross platform play between the two versions.
Of course, unlike Valve, most multiplatform developers will design their game around XBL's available functionality in an attempt to maintain parity between both versions of the game, and in such situations the ease of working with XBL will be more beneficial to developers. You can generally make the PS3 version on par with the 360 version in any situation, it just takes more work (sometimes A LOT more work) to get it there. You'll occasionally see companies relying on third parties to help out as a result, like Rockstar using Gamespy in the ps3 version of Red Dead Redemption. Or maybe it was EA and Bad Company 2 - I can't really remember.
Anyway, in such cases PSN's more "do-it-yourself" nature is probably seen as a hindrance, but in other situations it can be seen as a great boon, and its because of this that we've seen interesting stuff on ps3 like LittleBigPlanet's unusual party system or Demon's Souls' blood stains and phantoms. There's also the fact that Final Fantasy XIV is currently only on PC/PS3, but that's probably due to the same update issues Valve is facing on top of the whole subscription fee problem. They can't have 360 players play with ps3/pc players if they can't update all three games simultaneously.
