Bayonetta Dev Talks PS3 Version Problems
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
While I sometimes wish I cought a ps3, stories like this kinda make me glad I haven't.
Fixed for yousquid5580 said:
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.Shy_Guy said:
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.
And yet, the only PS3 engine developer I know said he likes coding for the thing.
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 waysChromeAlchemist said:
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.Nerf Ninja said:
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
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?Nutcase said:
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?
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...
Boy oh boy, I just hope Sega add big the cat as an exclusive playable character on the PS3 to make up for it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.SinisterDeath said:
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.
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.SinisterDeath said:
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.
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)?
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.
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?
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.
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...Marq said:
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 said:
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.T said:
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.
ITs only difficult for those developers who are stuck in the PC mindset.Shy_Guy said:
At least you admit it. Thats +1 respect points to you.
Less Complex is a plus, but its not always the best thing out there.
Each console has there strong point.
Pound for Pound 360 and PS3 are near identical in power.
360 has the edge on 'general computations', and PS3 has the edge on floating point calculations.
Dude, the point I was making was that the PS2 WAS not easy to develop for. but it WAS the standard!
The Point is, Being the 'standard' Has nothing to do with being 'easy', its all about which console hit the market first, and is able to maintain that edge!
You really couldn't make that out of what I typed?
Yes, Obviously they are on the forefront of technology, BECUASE THE HARDWARE CHANGES EVERY 3 MONTHS!
Consoles? The hardware virutally stays the same through out its lifespan. It sitll has the same Ghz, memory, GPU, chipsizes mayget smaller, more energy efficient, produce less heat, but they stay the same.
Can you imagine the guys who made Crysis, to still work on a 'PC' from 8 years when the PS2 was released? Course not.
Again, UT3 was made for PC First. The code was made for the PC/360. You can not easilly port a game from the 360 to the ps3. IT does not work that way. You can go 'down' from 6 cores to 3 cores, easilly, but you cannot go up from 3 cores to 6 cores easilly. That is the point.
360 works like a PC. You throw 'code' at the CPUs like on a PC.
On a PC, because every PC is going to have different CPU's, Memory, speed of the memory, GPU memory, GPU speed.. the program has to be able to operate where the 'hardware' decides how to do the operations. The Ps3 the developers have to tell the CPU how and where the operations take place.
To put it simply, on the 360, the PHYSICs, or the AI can take place on any of the 3 cores.
On the Ps3, it don't work like that. You have to program the AI or the Physics to work on one of the PPEs, or the CPU. Or both. So going from ps3, where everything is split up '7 ways' (1 general CPU and 6 SPEs) you can take 3 of those PPEs and move that over to one of the cores on the 360, Then take the other 3 PPEs and move that over to the other core on the 360.
and *GASP* guess what happens?
You now have a game that is far more optimized becuase it only uses a % of each core! its using them efficiently!
Going from PC/360 coding to PS3 though, don't work nearly as well. The architecture automatically splits that code up and distributes it depending on workload between those 3 cpus.
The PS3 cell
does.
not.
operate.
that.
way.
They have to manually change the code to work correctly.
This takes long. So they take short cuts.
Also, the SPE's aren't as good at certain types of calculations. AI being one of them. So theres certain things you put on the general CPU, and others you can put on the PPEs.
ITs not that its hard, its just it goes against the 'PC' mold, Where its not about optimization for one system, its about getting it to work ont hat system.
PC Developers AREN'T EVEN OPTIMIZING VIDEO GAMES ON QUAD-CORE CPU'S YET!
Why? Cause they are lazy! So yes, PC designers have no right to slam the PS3 with its 'multi-core' technology! Half of the early PS3 Ports were so shitty, they didn't use any PPEs at all, they put everything on the PS3s 1 general CPU!
PSX, the games started out rather meh. Then they got better and better... You basically went from top down mario style games, to full blown 3D... Then we got Final Fantasy 7/8/9 which is basically the pinacle of PSX graphics!
Why? Because as the programers got better at the console, they were able to use more and more of the power to its full potential! They learned more tricks.
Same happened to the PS2. The orginal PS2 games looked no better then the FF8/9. Then we got Shadow of the Collosus, RE4. Those looked great. Theres always limitations when you first learn a new 'platform'.
Its like web comics.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1998/11/25/
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/9/7/
Things change, they evolve.
They may do one thing in one game, only to find theres a better more efficient way of doing it. Every year developers are constantly learning new, easier, faster, and more efficient ways to do the same thing.
Naughty Dog making Uncharted: Drakes Fortune is already giving away there 'secrets' for free to help developers make games on the PS3. And you can Not deny that Uncharted looks flippin awesome.
Becuase they are the stanard? They launched a year early? Developers backed Microsoft for there early launch? They already have worked on it a year in advance? Its a familiar architecture as the PC? And PC is the standard?
The PPE's are anything but pointless. Every good looking functioning game on the PS3 uses the PPE's. Those shitty ones?
They used its 1 central general purpose CPU.
If anything hte PS3 teaches, or rather forces you to be efficient with your coding. Teaches you to split up how processes are processed.
If you can do that 7 ways, you can do it 4,3,2 ways.
Almost no Game developer is making games optimized for Quad Cores, yet they are at the 'forefront' of technology. They don't like change. No one really does. And if you listened to the nintendo E3, they use that word I've been trying to think of but had to substitute for change over and over again. As they say, if it aint' broke don't fix it.
If you don't have to learn a new method, why?
I'm suprised you could type layman with out giggling.