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

Forums - Gaming - If PS3 is hard to port to, then just make on the PS3 first....read

Million on 04 January 2009
Khuutra said:
Million said:

well your post indicates you may have some inside information in regards to current gen games development.

It also indicates that they say this sort of thing in reviews and press releases, which they do. Constantly. I can't be assed to find them myself, I'll let NJ5 do that if he feels it necessary, but the best example I can think of has to do with the PS3 version of Bioshock.

Silly me , if they say it then it must be so.

 




Around the Network
Khuutra on 04 January 2009
Million said:
Khuutra said:
Million said:

well your post indicates you may have some inside information in regards to current gen games development.

It also indicates that they say this sort of thing in reviews and press releases, which they do. Constantly. I can't be assed to find them myself, I'll let NJ5 do that if he feels it necessary, but the best example I can think of has to do with the PS3 version of Bioshock.

Silly me , if they say it then it must be so.

That would be one's primary assumption, yes.

"We are making proper use of the PS3's architecture! No shitty ports for us, no sir!"

And you think they're lying when they say that? Why?



Garnett on 04 January 2009
Million said:
Garnett said:
Million said:
frybread said:

That would be a stupid business move.

You want the lead platform to be the same as the biggest seller. PS3 as the lead platform will continue to be rare this gen. In some cases it's financially wise to skip PS3 altogether, as Valve has begun doing.

 

you think ignoring 20 million ps3's is more cost effective than porting a game ? debating with you is a waste of time.

Garnett said:
Million said:
colonelstubbs said:
Companies will also optimize the version expected to sell more, usually the 360 version

That doesn't weaken the case for ps3 > > 360 ports .

 

Garnett said:
Million said:

i think developers are reversing it , more multiplats are equal or superior on the ps3. Development of many games take years so the change isn't as fast as many would like.

 

PS3 ported to 360 means the game will have to use what 360 (CPU wise)can use and be under 7 gigs.Therefore 3rd partys wont be using any real part of teh PS3.

your post makes no sense (logic wise)

What dosent make sense? Let me try to explain it :p The 360 DVD can only use 6.8 gigs therefore Blue Ray is useless since companys want to save money,The PS3 cpu is stronger than 360 CPU,so they would have to make the game have within 360 CPU limit from the bat,so either way PS3 is getting ripped off..

when leading on the ps3 you'd still take into concideration the limitations of the 360(dvd,no manndatory hdd install etc) in pre production stages making some degrades or sacrifices if neccasery.
Yea but either way the PS3 still is getting a port really,there not gonna be using any part of the PS3,which is very sad.

i see what you mean but we just have to accept that's the nature of multi-platform development , it wont stop multi-plats from getting better though , the standard always improve. thank god for excclusives eh ?

 

Yes indeed,exclusives are always better than Multiplats cause they show the systems true strenghts.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Million on 04 January 2009
Khuutra said:
Million said:
Khuutra said:
Million said:

well your post indicates you may have some inside information in regards to current gen games development.

It also indicates that they say this sort of thing in reviews and press releases, which they do. Constantly. I can't be assed to find them myself, I'll let NJ5 do that if he feels it necessary, but the best example I can think of has to do with the PS3 version of Bioshock.

Silly me , if they say it then it must be so.

That would be one's primary assumption, yes.

"We are making proper use of the PS3's architecture! No shitty ports for us, no sir!"

And you think they're lying when they say that? Why?

NJ5 made a generalisation , that's pretty specific.

 




frybread on 04 January 2009
MikeB said:
frybread said:

That would be a stupid business move.

You want the lead platform to be the same as the biggest seller. PS3 as the lead platform will continue to be rare this gen.  In some cases it's financially wise to skip PS3 altogether, as Valve has begun doing.

Actually it makes good sense. You cannot as easily take the lazy route on the PS3 and the gains are beneficial everywhere. Read the quote above, there are many similar statements from other developers.

The 360 version will not hurt in quality in any way, performance will actually be enhanced to some extend (but by far not as much as on the PS3). If you code the way Microsoft wants developers to code, a PS3 port will pose problems.

Two words:

Mirror's Edge

 



PC + Wii owners unite.  Our last-gen dying platforms have access to nearly every 90+ rated game this gen.  Building a PC that visually outperforms PS360 is cheap and easy.    Oct 7th 2010 predictions (made Dec 17th '08)
PC: 10^9
Wii: 10^8

Around the Network
Khuutra on 04 January 2009
Million said:
Khuutra said:
Million said:
Khuutra said:
Million said:

well your post indicates you may have some inside information in regards to current gen games development.

It also indicates that they say this sort of thing in reviews and press releases, which they do. Constantly. I can't be assed to find them myself, I'll let NJ5 do that if he feels it necessary, but the best example I can think of has to do with the PS3 version of Bioshock.

Silly me , if they say it then it must be so.

That would be one's primary assumption, yes.

"We are making proper use of the PS3's architecture! No shitty ports for us, no sir!"

And you think they're lying when they say that? Why?

NJ5 made a generalisation , that's pretty specific.

Words of Wisdom said, "How about developers optimize their game on each platform they're making it on instead of making one version a crappy port?"

NJ5 replied, "That's precisely what developers are doing these days."

That is exactly the same as what I just said.

Yes, he followed up with the idea that developers say it's more difficult to optimize for the PS3, but that's true do. They say it constantly. Why do you think they would lie about somehting like that? What puts you in a mode so defensive that you disagree with one statement and agree with another when it's two people saying the same thing?



NJ5 on 04 January 2009

@Million: I see a lot of hand waving, but you haven't yet pointed at a recent PS3 crappy port. Am I wrong in believing that most developers nowadays are making proper PS3 versions?

As I said in my other reply, it's not based on any insider information (which I don't have since I'm not an insider). Everything I'm saying is based on the news and statements I read.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Million on 04 January 2009
Khuutra said:
Million said:
Khuutra said:
Million said:
Khuutra said:
Million said:

well your post indicates you may have some inside information in regards to current gen games development.

It also indicates that they say this sort of thing in reviews and press releases, which they do. Constantly. I can't be assed to find them myself, I'll let NJ5 do that if he feels it necessary, but the best example I can think of has to do with the PS3 version of Bioshock.

Silly me , if they say it then it must be so.

That would be one's primary assumption, yes.

"We are making proper use of the PS3's architecture! No shitty ports for us, no sir!"

And you think they're lying when they say that? Why?

NJ5 made a generalisation , that's pretty specific.

Words of Wisdom said, "How about developers optimize their game on each platform they're making it on instead of making one version a crappy port?"

NJ5 replied, "That's precisely what developers are doing these days."

That is exactly the same as what I just said.

Yes, he followed up with the idea that developers say it's more difficult to optimize for the PS3, but that's true do. They say it constantly. Why do you think they would lie about somehting like that? What puts you in a mode so defensive that you disagree with one statement and agree with another when it's two people saying the same thing?

Firstly  i never said NJ5  or any developer was wrong or lying , i was just challenging his justification. I never said developers were lying but you can't just assume what they are saying has 100% accuracy.

 




Bullet100000 on 04 January 2009

I think now that the PS3 has a stable install base some developer are developing for Ps3 first then porting them to 360.



*Al Bundy's My Hero*

 

*Al Bundy For President*

Waiting On GT7!!!

 PSN ID: Acidfacekiller

rubido on 04 January 2009
MikeB said:
Yes, to quote a multi-platform developer:

"Writing code optimized for the PS3 and using threading policies that are suited the SPUs is a given, because not doing so would not be acceptable at all. All our multithreading is done on PS3 first without exception, and other platforms emulate SPURS."

"Secondly, the matters of multithreading policies, the whole job queue architecture, encapsulation of jobs and their corresponding data packets, etc. that work on the PS3 are indeed more than applicable of the 360/PC. And as I've mentioned before, they work better than anything and everything that Microsoft recommends (so far without exception for us). The problems lie in the fact that that work is an absolute necessity on the PS3, whereas they're not entirely necessary on any other platform."

That's pretty much at the core of the issue. Writing PS3 friendly code, will also result in better performing code on other CPUs. Of course the Cell is by far the most powerful console CPU, so the gains here can be much bigger potentially, but that won't be the case for most multi-platform games as for example you can't have one version of the game have twice as many onscreen enemies than another version without considerable redesign.

 

Who the hell is this developer? I searched for those quotes in google and couldn't find anything.

And also, your conclusion from those quotes is wrong (the bolded part). It is true that it is easier to port a code from an architecture with more cores to one with less cores. It is also true that this forces you to work more on the code and might have something more organized. But in no way does this imply that the code will perform better. Don't confuse things as this is incorrect.