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

Forums - Gaming - I have more respect for multi-platform developers than console exclusive

Loud_Hot_White_Box on 19 November 2009
dorbin2009 said:
Munkeh111 said:
Um, Uncharted 2 looks far better than all those games.... because it was only made on one platform, and nobody has really mastered the platform like them. Yes their job is made slightly easier, but who cares, I get a better game at the end of it, and from their point of view, it sells more consoles, because they are sony


Okay but what is to say that if UC2 was ported to the 360, then it would decline such a massive amount of quality that it wouldn't be worth the extra 33 million possible buyers?

Or, conversely, if Gears of War was posted to the PS3, do you honestly think the games graphics would suffer to the point of lessening sales?

The game looks great because the developers are great, not because they are the gatekeepers of Cel computing.

So you're talking business decision.  Others seem to be talking about what heights of quality can be achieved.  The source of respect is going after sales, then?

 



Around the Network
SnesTea on 19 November 2009
Hus said:
dorbin2009 said:

..And so should you.

Lately I've gotten to thinking about the future of the gaming landscape and where we are headed in terms of the games available for each system. It seems a little archaic in 2009 with all the advancements in technology to just produce games for either the Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3. I realize that thinking this way calls into question some of my favorite developers (Valve and Bungie to name a couple), but with the quality multiplatform games being released every year, would it really take that much more effort to code the game for another system?

To me there is absolutely no proof that developing a game for multiple platforms reduces the quality of that game. When you look at Borderlands, AC2, DA:Origins, GTA4, and many others, can you really tell me that the game would have been so much better if they had just chosen one system to code it for? I think that a quality developer wouldn't need to restrict themselves in order to establish a fanbase.

Using exclusive games as ammo to why your system is better may be all well and good, but at the end of the day have you actually thought about /why/ that game is exclusive? Even quality projects on the Wii have impressive enough graphics where you would think, with enough time and energy, certain "HD" games could make the transition without a huge loss in quality.

I'm sure I am going to get enough "lol, Uncharted 2 would look like ass on the 360, noob" comments,  but considering the massive amount of people playing video games on each system, it just seems like the big three spend  far too much money gaining exclusives that could be used on actually improving the quality of their respective units.

Just looking at prospective trends in both gaming and computing (I.E. Motion Control/Cloud Computing) it seems that in the future, there really will be little to no excuse as to why a game can't be made, in some capacity, on all three systems. Yes, you could argue to me  that loyalty is important to you, but honestly, that developers "loyalty" is really just a very fat paycheck. And I personally would rather that money be spent on quality of hardware (Less RRoD, Cross game chat, 720/1080P on a system made in 2007) than securing that my precious Halo resides on only one system.

So have I accidently taken a bite out of a cookie laced with cocaine  and am speaking crazy talk, or do I have some valid points? Discuss.

No valid points.

MS buys exclusives, Sony for the most part makes their own while Nin preety much does it all them selfs. 

GTA4 was quite mediocre in my opinion, it could have been much much better.  A 360 ecxlusive GTA4 would ahve been a better game then the multi plat one. 

Oh my gosh! Hus is actually back!!!!

 

When to system's are world's apart when it comes to programming, you wouldn't want to port it to say PS3, which is supposedly hard to program for. I wouldn't know. I don't program games for the platform.

 

As for Hus' GTAIV comment, I agree. If it was an exclusive title for either 360 or PS3, it would have blown San Andreas out of the water, but it's an inferior game, at least when it comes to driving and content.



Kantor on 19 November 2009
Snesboy said:
Hus said:
dorbin2009 said:

..And so should you.

Lately I've gotten to thinking about the future of the gaming landscape and where we are headed in terms of the games available for each system. It seems a little archaic in 2009 with all the advancements in technology to just produce games for either the Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3. I realize that thinking this way calls into question some of my favorite developers (Valve and Bungie to name a couple), but with the quality multiplatform games being released every year, would it really take that much more effort to code the game for another system?

To me there is absolutely no proof that developing a game for multiple platforms reduces the quality of that game. When you look at Borderlands, AC2, DA:Origins, GTA4, and many others, can you really tell me that the game would have been so much better if they had just chosen one system to code it for? I think that a quality developer wouldn't need to restrict themselves in order to establish a fanbase.

Using exclusive games as ammo to why your system is better may be all well and good, but at the end of the day have you actually thought about /why/ that game is exclusive? Even quality projects on the Wii have impressive enough graphics where you would think, with enough time and energy, certain "HD" games could make the transition without a huge loss in quality.

I'm sure I am going to get enough "lol, Uncharted 2 would look like ass on the 360, noob" comments,  but considering the massive amount of people playing video games on each system, it just seems like the big three spend  far too much money gaining exclusives that could be used on actually improving the quality of their respective units.

Just looking at prospective trends in both gaming and computing (I.E. Motion Control/Cloud Computing) it seems that in the future, there really will be little to no excuse as to why a game can't be made, in some capacity, on all three systems. Yes, you could argue to me  that loyalty is important to you, but honestly, that developers "loyalty" is really just a very fat paycheck. And I personally would rather that money be spent on quality of hardware (Less RRoD, Cross game chat, 720/1080P on a system made in 2007) than securing that my precious Halo resides on only one system.

So have I accidently taken a bite out of a cookie laced with cocaine  and am speaking crazy talk, or do I have some valid points? Discuss.

No valid points.

MS buys exclusives, Sony for the most part makes their own while Nin preety much does it all them selfs. 

GTA4 was quite mediocre in my opinion, it could have been much much better.  A 360 ecxlusive GTA4 would ahve been a better game then the multi plat one. 

Oh my gosh! Hus is actually back!!!!

 

When to system's are world's apart when it comes to programming, you wouldn't want to port it to say PS3, which is supposedly hard to program for. I wouldn't know. I don't program games for the platform.

 

As for Hus' GTAIV comment, I agree. If it was an exclusive title for either 360 or PS3, it would have blown San Andreas out of the water, but it's an inferior game, at least when it comes to driving and content.

He's been posting every day since 3rd November. It took you this long to realise?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

GreyianStorm on 19 November 2009
Snesboy said:
Hus said:
dorbin2009 said:

..And so should you.

Lately I've gotten to thinking about the future of the gaming landscape and where we are headed in terms of the games available for each system. It seems a little archaic in 2009 with all the advancements in technology to just produce games for either the Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3. I realize that thinking this way calls into question some of my favorite developers (Valve and Bungie to name a couple), but with the quality multiplatform games being released every year, would it really take that much more effort to code the game for another system?

To me there is absolutely no proof that developing a game for multiple platforms reduces the quality of that game. When you look at Borderlands, AC2, DA:Origins, GTA4, and many others, can you really tell me that the game would have been so much better if they had just chosen one system to code it for? I think that a quality developer wouldn't need to restrict themselves in order to establish a fanbase.

Using exclusive games as ammo to why your system is better may be all well and good, but at the end of the day have you actually thought about /why/ that game is exclusive? Even quality projects on the Wii have impressive enough graphics where you would think, with enough time and energy, certain "HD" games could make the transition without a huge loss in quality.

I'm sure I am going to get enough "lol, Uncharted 2 would look like ass on the 360, noob" comments,  but considering the massive amount of people playing video games on each system, it just seems like the big three spend  far too much money gaining exclusives that could be used on actually improving the quality of their respective units.

Just looking at prospective trends in both gaming and computing (I.E. Motion Control/Cloud Computing) it seems that in the future, there really will be little to no excuse as to why a game can't be made, in some capacity, on all three systems. Yes, you could argue to me  that loyalty is important to you, but honestly, that developers "loyalty" is really just a very fat paycheck. And I personally would rather that money be spent on quality of hardware (Less RRoD, Cross game chat, 720/1080P on a system made in 2007) than securing that my precious Halo resides on only one system.

So have I accidently taken a bite out of a cookie laced with cocaine  and am speaking crazy talk, or do I have some valid points? Discuss.

No valid points.

MS buys exclusives, Sony for the most part makes their own while Nin preety much does it all them selfs. 

GTA4 was quite mediocre in my opinion, it could have been much much better.  A 360 ecxlusive GTA4 would ahve been a better game then the multi plat one. 

Oh my gosh! Hus is actually back!!!!

 

When to system's are world's apart when it comes to programming, you wouldn't want to port it to say PS3, which is supposedly hard to program for. I wouldn't know. I don't program games for the platform.

 

As for Hus' GTAIV comment, I agree. If it was an exclusive title for either 360 or PS3, it would have blown San Andreas out of the water, but it's an inferior game, at least when it comes to driving and content.

I actually thought driving was one of the best elements of GTA4. I no longer felt like I was glued to the road all the time.



Call of Duty More Popular Than Halo

daiyumn on 19 November 2009

I didnt read all that but yeah I agree.



I am a loyal SONY fan and will always be.

I am also a PS1, PS2, PS3 and a PSP owner.

<a href="http://ps3trophycard.com/profile/daiyumn316"><imgsrc="http://card.mmos.com/psn/profile/da/i/daiyumn316/card.png" border="0" alt="daiyumn316 /></a>

Click this ----->  http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=83696to post your top 10 games.

Around the Network
.jayderyu on 19 November 2009
dorbin2009 said:

..And so should you.

Lately I've gotten to thinking about the future of the gaming landscape and where we are headed in terms of the games available for each system. It seems a little archaic in 2009 with all the advancements in technology to just produce games for either the Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3. I realize that thinking this way calls into question some of my favorite developers (Valve and Bungie to name a couple), but with the quality multiplatform games being released every year, would it really take that much more effort to code the game for another system?

So have I accidently taken a bite out of a cookie laced with cocaine  and am speaking crazy talk, or do I have some valid points? Discuss.

I agree with your sentiments. It does indeed seem absurd to make a game soley for say a 20m install base *cough* NGC/PS3 *cough* rather than trying to capture the ENTIRE market

By opinion is that the only company doing exclusives should be first party or contract. All the third party should be making the game as accesible to as many players as possible. Seriously if Sony didn't make the cheap transistor radio for the masses and just make top tier cabinet radios with high sound qaulity they would certainly not be the company they are today.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

Onyxmeth on 19 November 2009

I agree to an extent. I understand that first party games are there to differentiate a console, but even then, so few of them take advantage of the console they're on to warrant a special attachment to them. For every Uncharted and Gears of War, there are five Infamous' and Viva Pinatas that don't look any better or play any better than their multiplatform equivalents.

Secondly, there's a point to bring up that if you're a third party publisher and your palms aren't being greased with a console maker's money, then why are you going single platform? Sega and Ubisoft, I'm looking at you. 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Munkeh111 on 19 November 2009
nordlead said:
dorbin2009 said:
Munkeh111 said:
Um, Uncharted 2 looks far better than all those games.... because it was only made on one platform, and nobody has really mastered the platform like them. Yes their job is made slightly easier, but who cares, I get a better game at the end of it, and from their point of view, it sells more consoles, because they are sony


Okay but what is to say that if UC2 was ported to the 360, then it would decline such a massive amount of quality that it wouldn't be worth the extra 33 million possible buyers?

Or, conversely, if Gears of War was posted to the PS3, do you honestly think the games graphics would suffer to the point of lessening sales?

The game looks great because the developers are great, not because they are the gatekeepers of Cel computing.

If UC2 was ported after the fact that it was released on PS3, it could possibly look just as good on 360. However, they wouldn't be focusing on 2 platforms at once, and instead we might see the X360 version 1 year later with a lot of effort put into it. If they were working on both at once using a multiplatform middleware solution (which is always a compromise) then they would have burned up any budget they had a lot faster (in other words more upfront investment needed). A late port has more money to work with as they already reaped profits from the original release.

I dunno if they could port it. The game was designed based around the cell, and it takes great advantage of the SPUs, so they would have to recode the entire game, and I am fairly certain it would not look that good. It only cost $20m to make Uncharted 2, which isn't too bad, and they will have already made that back, so I don't think they really need to go multiplatform to make money off the game



MikeB on 19 November 2009

I respect the devs the most who take advantage of their target hardware and modern technology (HDTV, surround sound, internet connectivity, etc) the most (like Blu-Ray and the Cell processor). So especially Naughty Dog.

I have far less respect for exclusive developers who built their games based on multi-platform game engines (so no real technical reason to not port their games onto all capable consoles). (for example Epic)

The least I respect one developing company which apparently lacks ambition to push their game engine towards new more competent challenges (changes which would only modernize and optimize their engine), this while talking pure trash regarding their true motives. Namely Valve.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Onyxmeth on 19 November 2009
MikeB said:
I respect the devs the most who take advantage of their target hardware the most (like Blu-Ray and the Cell processor). So especially Naughty Dog.

I have far less respect for exclusive developers who built their games based on multi-platform game engines (so no real technical reason to not port their games onto all capable consoles). (for example Epic)

The least I respect one developing company which apparently lacks ambition to push their game engine towards new more competent challenges (changes which would only modernize and optimize their engine), this while talking pure trash regarding their true motives. Namely Valve.

Come on. Surely you can come up with an example better than Epic. They made the engine itself and we all know it was originally heavily optimized for the PC and 360. Don't remember the first year of Unreal Engine games on PS3? They aren't pretty.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.