Bayonetta Dev Talks PS3 Version Problems

[DeadlyYellow]

So, they care about their developers so they make the console purposefully difficult to use? I'm sorry, that does not compute.

They sought to make their console purposefully difficult so devs would specialize in making for it and not bother with the other consoles, thus becoming exclusives.

Care being used in this fashion to pertain to patronage, rather than empathy.

 

[squid5580]

and then handed off all the data and other assets to SEGA

Well there is your problem

 

[The Rockerfly]

Y'know, I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for ps3 owners. Fallout 3 didn't look that great either, dlc not coming for months after, valve not wanting to develop for it and now this.

While I sometimes wish I cought a ps3, stories like this kinda make me glad I haven't.

SEGA

Well there is your problem

Fixed for you

 

[Nutcase]

Um, the original Xbox gave much better performance, was statistically way more powerful, and was easier to develop for than the PS2. So why is it that the PS3, which was released a year after the 360 is giving everyone so much trouble and really proving to do nothing as far as improving games on a technical level?

The original XBox cannot be compared to a normal console technology-wise. It was a totally unsustainable PC-in-a-box whose only business reason for existing was to pave way for the 360.

The PS3 is actually a lot friendlier to the programmer than the PS2 ever was, while - surprise, surprise - the 360 is a lot harder for the programmer than the XBox. In the process of shifting into a normal console manufacturer who intends to make a profit, Microsoft also had to choose performance and manufacturing cost over ease of use. They went with a multicore processor with cores similar to the Cell's PPE, instead of replacing the single core, long-pipeline x86 processor with a new faster one.

Edit: On a different note, what I despise is that everyone tries to put the blame on honest, hard-working developers that have to put up with a shittily thought-out console design.

And yet, the only PS3 engine developer I know said he likes coding for the thing.

 

[hansari]

IMO, it looks great. But I really meant was, it's no Uncharted 2 or KZ2. Buggy? I don't remember seeing any of it actually, link?

Sure, here you go. [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbx/tomclancyssplintercellchaostheory]

 

[cleverlymadeup]

bunch of lazy developers not being able to do their job of developing

I can agree somewhat that this was a cock up, which is surprising as they are former Capcom code monkeys. But they're not the first dev team to say this. Valve and Factor 5 also expressed the difficulty they had with the hardware, for example. Even John Carmack, the guy your favourite devs pray to before they go to sleep even had problems. Oh well.

actually Valve complains about ANY system that isn't windows, Gabe is an ex-m$ employee so his "difficulty" isn't too surprising. Carmack hasn't said it's difficult, just takes some getting used to as the PS3 does things in different ways

I've never understood why it was made harder to code for. If it's a technically better machine I can understand it being more complex but surely you'd go for both quality and ease of use?

I can sort of see their point that they want the games to improve in quality over time, but that just seems to pick on the early adopters which have to be at least considered the core market and their most loyal supporters.

best way to put it is lazy and bad coders. they've gotten so used to stuff like visual c++ that does a lot for them and can't really work with multiple processors correctly. it's a lot of bad training and bad schooling that has made them this way.

a lot of american developers couldn't be hired overseas cause of how bad they are and their lack of education. if you will notice most people will say that stuff like linux and unix are "hard" to code for, when in reality they aren't, it's because the person can't code

 

[Shy_Guy]

The original XBox cannot be compared to a normal console technology-wise. It was a totally unsustainable PC-in-a-box whose only business reason for existing was to pave way for the 360.

The PS3 is actually a lot friendlier to the programmer than the PS2 ever was, while - surprise, surprise - the 360 is a lot harder for the programmer than the XBox. In the process of shifting into a normal console manufacturer who intends to make a profit, Microsoft also had to choose performance and manufacturing cost over ease of use. They went with a multicore processor with cores similar to the Cell's PPE, instead of replacing the single core, long-pipeline x86 processor with a new faster one.

This I would like to see proof for. I'm not calling you a liar, I've just never heard of this. I understand that a multi-core processor alone makes programming more difficult, but it doesn't really compare to the issues the Cell brings to the table as far as I've heard from developers. They seem to have pretty much gotten past that hurdle a long time ago, for the most part. And all that I've seen about development on the 360 suggests that there are many and great developer tools which make it very easy to develop for the 360. I mean, it's fairly easy to port from PC to 360, is it not?

And saying that the PS3 is easier to develop for than the PS2 is like saying stabbing your foot is better than shooting it. That may very well be true, but you're still kind of screwed, no?

And yet, the only PS3 engine developer I know said he likes coding for the thing.

Good for him I suppose, but when the likes of John Carmack are being bashed because he spoke out about some difficulties specifically with the PS3, I can't really just believe he's some idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. And for Valve, who are technical wizards of sorts, to flat-out ignore the console I think says that maybe it's more trouble than it's worth.

I would think they know better than most people here. It's kind of what they do for a living...

 

[Cryo84R]

Fanboys always know what's best.

 

[DigitalSushi]

"With Bayonetta, we created the Xbox 360 version of the game first, and then handed off all the data and other assets to SEGA so they could begin the process of porting Bayonetta to the PS3, giving them advice regarding the porting process along the way and overseeing the progress to ensure that the PS3 version would be the best it could be.

Boy oh boy, I just hope Sega add big the cat as an exclusive playable character on the PS3 to make up for it.

 

[SinisterDeath]

This is just another case of a game being made for the 360 first, using 360 code designs, and trying to 'port' it to the ps3, which has been proven time in and time again to always suck.
The only quality ports that exist where both copies are equally good, is when the PS3 is the 'main' console the game is created on, or both copies are worked on in conjunction.

But nope, they just had to go back to trying to 'port' the game directly from 360 to PS3 which has never, ever worked out well.

ITs not like making it on the PS3 first and porting it to the 360 has no benefit to the 360...

Nope, all that extra polish and overall efficiency in coding for multi-core CPUs that goes into making a Ps3 game is totally lost when porting to a 360. /sarcasm.

 

[w-Jinksy]

and that children is why you dont hand over your game to a shitty corporation to port it, i.e valve handing it over to EA.

Oh well what can you do about it looks like this one will be supplementing my xbox collection and not my ps3's.

 

[SinisterDeath]

I understand that a multi-core processor alone makes programming more difficult, but it doesn't really compare to the issues the Cell brings to the table as far

360 has 3 cores, same speed, large cache.
Ps3 has 6 useable cores, same speed, small cache.
Basically, think of the 360 has having 3 200 HP engines.
The PS3 has 6, 105 HP Engines.

Thers some issues with memory, but the SPE's are so fast, that the are meant more towardes floating point calculations (basically, say, pure math) where as the 360 is completely general CPU calculations...
So, basically, PS3 is awesome at 'math', and the 360 is 'awesome' at language. the PS3 has to 'emulate' the 'language', which takes up power...Hence the coding differnces.

as I've heard from developers. They seem to have pretty much gotten past that hurdle a long time ago, for the most part. And all that I've seen about development on the 360 suggests that there are many and great developer tools which make it very easy to develop for the 360. I mean, it's fairly easy to port from PC to 360, is it not?

360 came outa year before Ps3.
Most games at that time were just winding down from Ps2/Xbox, so every developer was basically going from PC & 360 games for a whole year before PS3/Wii hit the market.
Launch games on 360 were no different in 'quality' compared to ps3.
They had a 1 year head start programmning... So by the 2nd year, Ps3 just got to the 1 year mark on the 360. 360 was already on the 2 year mark. Thats a huge leap.

What microsoft effectively did, was establish themselves as the 'standard'.
As for porting from PC to 360, yea its fairly straight forward because..

dun dun dun.
XP/Vista owned by Microsoft, Microsoft owns xbox! They all use 'similar' hardware, a 'custon' (Windows-like) OS so porting is easy for them.... But all console to PC ports suck.

And saying that the PS3 is easier to develop for than the PS2 is like saying stabbing your foot is better than shooting it. That may very well be true, but you're still kind of screwed, no?

This just shows you how ignorant you are.
The PS2, and the PSX were pains in the asses to code for. This has ALWAYS been true.
Devs who have worked on the PSX, PS2, and the PS3 state that the PS3 is the easiest to develop for of those 3. BY comparison, PS3 is more 'standardized' then the ps2!

But why were all the games of hte PS2/Gamecube/xbox generation made for the PS2?
BECAUSE IT WAS THE STANDARD CONSOLE!

It beat Gamecube & xbox in the market by 1 year.
And imo, PS2 & Gamecube may as well have had a whole 'year' advantage over the xbox. People trusted the sony/nintendo... Microsoft though? It took them awhile to sell... They didn't have anywhere near the PS2 market share.

Ps2 has sold 138,000,000 Units to this date.
Gamecube sold 21,000,000 Units.
Xbox sold 24,000,000 Units.

So in that generation, the Ps2, DOMINATED. Thats why people made games on the PS2 and why devs had 'no problems' with it. It was the 'standard'. Doesn't make it 'easy'.

Good for him I suppose, but when the likes of John Carmack are being bashed because he spoke out about some difficulties specifically with the PS3, I can't really just believe he's some idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. And for Valve, who are technical wizards of sorts, to flat-out ignore the console I think says that maybe it's more trouble than it's worth.
I would think they know better than most people here. It's kind of what they do for a living...

All PC guys. they've been working on Windows for YEARS. For them, Windows is the STANDARD, they KNOW how to code for that. PC's have General CPU's, you throw shit at it, it does what it does.
PS3 you have to tell the CPU where you want it calculated.
The Architecture and the code is different.
Consoles had have games that were made FOR that console. And unlike a PC,The games for a Console COULD use the entire systems Power. A PC has an operating system, background programs, and you have to design a game to run on 5000000 different configurations.

Its a world of difference between PC and console (nintendo/sony).
If you were to have a PC with the same power as a 360, the 360 would eat that pc to shreds.

You have to remember when it comes to PS3, and games.
People who make a game FOR the PS3, generally have no issues.
People who make games for 360 and then port it to the PS3, HAVE ISSUES. (Because you can not just do a direct port from 360 to ps3. You have alot more manually going in and 'changing' code to work for the PS3.)
People who make a game for hte PS3 and the 360 at the same time, Have no issues.

Devoping a game on a system with '1 general CPU, and 6 tiny CPUs, and then convertin that to work on a system with 3 general CPUS = Tons easier then trying to convert a game working on 3 general CPUS to working on a system with 1 general CPU and 6 tiny CPUs'.

Putting that engine model into effect.
Have 300 pounds attached to each 105HP engine of hte PS3's 6, And then putting (2)300 pounds behind each of the 360's 200 HP engines, is alot easier, then putting (3)600 pound blcoks between the 6x105 HP PS3 engines.

 

[MrGFunk]

I was never going to by this game because I think it looks terrible, like a kitsch Devil May Cry. Now it won't sell well on PS3 because it's a inferior version.

Maybe this will teach Platinum games to not put their names to someone else's work that they are willing to release without signing off. Or maybe they did sign it off and they will be known for releasing inferior products.

 

[Charley]

Is it that the PS3 is "complex" to develop for, or are all the developers out there just lazy, complacent and too used to developing on Microsoft/DirectX architecture?

Whilst I don't want to join the fanboy arm wrestling competition, if you can't code for the PS3 because it's too "hard", why not just sit yourself down and develop for XBox and let people who know what they're doing develop on PS3. Sure, you don't get as many multiplatform titles, but frankly who cares? Personally, I'd rather not have a game available than have a half-assed knockoff version because coders that grew up working with Microsoft can't cope.

In terms of developers being bashed for struggling with console architecture... it's about time. So you made a good game five years ago, have a cookie. Now get off your backside and learn some new tricks, then do it again. Developers, similar to employees of Blizzard, aren't gods and gamers don't owe them anything - it's good for gamers to give shoddy development a kicking, that's how change for the better happens.

Ultimately it' a case of potential markets and opportunity cost - developers aren't capable of/don't really want to code for every system. However, if they didn't do -something- they'd be missing out on a couple of million head market whichever console they made an exclusive for. Publishers don't like that, because heads = money, and money = the only reason they're involved in video games, therefore they're happy to release a good version and a subpar version, because the poor version might just rake in some cash, which is good enough for them.

 

[mukestar]

I understand that a multi-core processor alone makes programming more difficult, but it doesn't really compare to the issues the Cell brings to the table as far

360 has 3 cores, same speed, large cache.
Ps3 has 6 useable cores, same speed, small cache.
Basically, think of the 360 has having 3 200 HP engines.
The PS3 has 6, 105 HP Engines.


Consoles had have games that were made FOR that console. And unlike a PC,The games for a Console COULD use the entire systems Power. A PC has an operating system, background programs, and you have to design a game to run on 5000000 different configurations.

Reading your entire post just hurt my head. It was like a compilation of articles someone has come across, partly digested, and violently vomitted. When i come across the 500000 different configurations nugget a little "plink" went of in my head. It was a "plink" of where the feck is this rant going.

I believe that that IBM compatibles have come a long way since you programmed the hardware directly. Yeah, here will be conflicts in driver versions and what not , but your making out that the developer has to travel to your house and test the games directly on your individual pc.

 

[Shy_Guy]

360 has 3 cores, same speed, large cache.
Ps3 has 6 useable cores, same speed, small cache.
Basically, think of the 360 has having 3 200 HP engines.
The PS3 has 6, 105 HP Engines.

Thers some issues with memory, but the SPE's are so fast, that the are meant more towardes floating point calculations (basically, say, pure math) where as the 360 is completely general CPU calculations...
So, basically, PS3 is awesome at 'math', and the 360 is 'awesome' at language. the PS3 has to 'emulate' the 'language', which takes up power...Hence the coding differnces.

This tells me nothing new. You're basically still saying what I'm saying. Look, I even understand the the Cell is theoretically super impressive. But, as it has been said many times before, it does nothing to make game developing easier and everything to make it harder.

360 came outa year before Ps3.
Most games at that time were just winding down from Ps2/Xbox, so every developer was basically going from PC & 360 games for a whole year before PS3/Wii hit the market.
Launch games on 360 were no different in 'quality' compared to ps3.
They had a 1 year head start programmning... So by the 2nd year, Ps3 just got to the 1 year mark on the 360. 360 was already on the 2 year mark. Thats a huge leap.

What microsoft effectively did, was establish themselves as the 'standard'.
As for porting from PC to 360, yea its fairly straight forward because..

dun dun dun.
XP/Vista owned by Microsoft, Microsoft owns xbox! They all use 'similar' hardware, a 'custon' (Windows-like) OS so porting is easy for them.... But all console to PC ports suck.

Really? I had no idea. Thank you for enlightening me, for I am an ignorant child who knows not of what he speaks.

None of what you stated changes the fact that 3 cores are less than 6 "SPEs", and thus less complex.

This just shows you how ignorant you are.
The PS2, and the PSX were pains in the asses to code for. This has ALWAYS been true.
Devs who have worked on the PSX, PS2, and the PS3 state that the PS3 is the easiest to develop for of those 3. BY comparison, PS3 is more 'standardized' then the ps2!

But why were all the games of hte PS2/Gamecube/xbox generation made for the PS2?
BECAUSE IT WAS THE STANDARD CONSOLE!

It beat Gamecube & xbox in the market by 1 year.
And imo, PS2 & Gamecube may as well have had a whole 'year' advantage over the xbox. People trusted the sony/nintendo... Microsoft though? It took them awhile to sell... They didn't have anywhere near the PS2 market share.

Ps2 has sold 138,000,000 Units to this date.
Gamecube sold 21,000,000 Units.
Xbox sold 24,000,000 Units.

So in that generation, the Ps2, DOMINATED. Thats why people made games on the PS2 and why devs had 'no problems' with it. It was the 'standard'. Doesn't make it 'easy'.

Yes, let's be mature and call each other ignorant.

Why can't the standard be easy? With the costs of development increasing so much recently, why should a console manufacturer demand that the developers spend more time trying to figure their machine out than the rival console(s)?

All PC guys. they've been working on Windows for YEARS. For them, Windows is the STANDARD, they KNOW how to code for that. PC's have General CPU's, you throw shit at it, it does what it does.
PS3 you have to tell the CPU where you want it calculated.
The Architecture and the code is different.
Consoles had have games that were made FOR that console. And unlike a PC,The games for a Console COULD use the entire systems Power. A PC has an operating system, background programs, and you have to design a game to run on 5000000 different configurations.

Its a world of difference between PC and console (nintendo/sony).
If you were to have a PC with the same power as a 360, the 360 would eat that pc to shreds.

PC guys, yeah, who are always on the forefront of technology. Never-mind that Epic had similar problems with the Unreal Engine 3, and now id are having trouble with Rage. They're just stupid PC guys who have never EVER dealt with consoles.

Look, no one said it was impossible, but why does it have to be harder? What benefit is there? There has yet to be any proof of any such benefits within the game world. Supercomputing perhaps, but that does not help game developers.

You have to remember when it comes to PS3, and games.
People who make a game FOR the PS3, generally have no issues.
People who make games for 360 and then port it to the PS3, HAVE ISSUES. (Because you can not just do a direct port from 360 to ps3. You have alot more manually going in and 'changing' code to work for the PS3.)
People who make a game for hte PS3 and the 360 at the same time, Have no issues.

Let's just sweep Factor 5 and Free Radical Design issues under the rug and pretend they don't exist. And surely id was lying about working on all platforms simultaneously.

Why have there been no such complaints about the 360? Because, while there may be issues, the tools are there and the hardware is pretty standardized. What sort of positives does the PS3 provide that warrant it being more difficult to develop for? Honestly?

Devoping a game on a system with '1 general CPU, and 6 tiny CPUs, and then convertin that to work on a system with 3 general CPUS = Tons easier then trying to convert a game working on 3 general CPUS to working on a system with 1 general CPU and 6 tiny CPUs'.

Putting that engine model into effect.
Have 300 pounds attached to each 105HP engine of hte PS3's 6, And then putting (2)300 pounds behind each of the 360's 200 HP engines, is alot easier, then putting (3)600 pound blcoks between the 6x105 HP PS3 engines.

Right, but why have to work with the pointless SPEs? Not one single thing has been said about any sort of benefits to working with the Cell over the 360's CPU.

I do appreciate you trying to put everything into layman's terms for my vast ignorance though.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Heh. And I thought one of the selling points of the PS3 was its superior hardware.

Me too. It's a shame that all these PS3 owners are getting shafted, and I thought that the PS3 version might actually run better than the 360 version, at first...

 

[FloodOne]

Heh. And I thought one of the selling points of the PS3 was it's superior hardware.

Superior hardware needs to be taken advantage of by competent devs. Plenty of games were developed on the 360 first, then ported to the ps3, and both products come out looking/playing brilliantly.

This sounds like laziness on the part of Platinum Games.

Sony fanboys, you can now stop hating on VALVe. Direct your attention to a dev house that deserves it.

Hneh...

You will see more of this folks. Secret fanboys fighting among well known fanboys, with some flames, maybe some swearing, lots of quote box chains...

Someone fucked up somewhere. It's not because the PS3 has 1337 hardware settings, or Microsoft payed someone off, someone just fucked up. I'll just put that out there, so when the flames start, people can trace back to this.

So wait, are you calling me a fanboy? Considering that COD4, Fallout 3, Madden 10, and Prototype were all developed on the 360, then ported to the ps3 with no discernible differences in performance or graphical fidelity, I feel my post was justified.

 

[Sparrow]

*SNIPPED FOR LENGTH*

Noooooooo. (Or atleast, not outright anyway)

Maybe you're a Secret Fanboy, but you'd be secret, so I wouldn't know.

 

[VZLANemesis]

"However, all involved endeavored to exploit the specific traits of each console to create an enjoyable experience. We feel the best way to evaluate this is by actually playing the game for yourself and coming to your own conclusions."
Did he just justify a badly made port by saying you should buy both versions to compare them?

Nope, he just said ps3 owners should still buy the game even though it blows... Your mone -scratch that- Your opinions are quite important for us, and in the end you shouldn't be just a follower and a believer that the game for the ps3 looks like ass, which it kinda does. lol.
I bet any other company with a bit of self-respect would have chosen to simply not launch the game on the PS3 and/or delay its PS3 release until its up to the original (360) game. But yeah, that's why there are Blizzard fanboys, Valve fanboys, and no love for these motherfuckers. ^^

Thought #2: this shit is like the Ghostbusters fiasco all over again... just with a more relevant looking game. Damn, and I wanted this game so badly.
Thank god Ninja Gaiden is coming soon enough to the ps3.