A heads up to those reading, this is a long post.
TLDR: Do you think developers should spend the extra money and develop for the PS3 first then port to the 360 so that both versions are of equal quality, or keep things the same with the PS3 ports often inferior to their 360 counterparts, but the total cost of development is cheaper?
Since my 360 has been on the fritz and is still in the process of being repaired, I began to look to the future for when it will inevitably suicide again. A lot of people say that the easy solution is to sell your games, wipe a tear away for the exclusives, and buy cross-platform ones back on the PS3. A simple enough solution but this brings me to the topic's main point.
Generally nowadays if a game is released on both systems I will opt for the PS3 version, though a recent exception was Ghostbusters and I was going to get Assassin's Creed II for 360 as well but once the Xbox died I moved to the safer, albeit inferior option. Now what lead me to this discussion was simply browsing the ebgames Australia website for the boxart to Final Fantasy XIII, since I was curious as to the rating it received down under after the Americans were granted the usual T rating. Seeing the game got me thinking about this whole issue. Funny how things happen like that sometimes.
Now despite my protest that FFXIII shouldn't be on the 360 at all, the fact is that it's a cross-platform game done right. The game was initially developed on the PS3 and then ported to the 360. This ensures that both versions are equal and no one has to complain or feel that they are receiving an inferior version. The reason this isn't done all the time is because since the PS3 is more difficult to design for, it's more expensive, hence developers choose to build the game on the 360 first and then port to the PS3 afterwards. Now using Ghostbusters as an example, the colour of the PS3 version is much more washed out than on the Xbox, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that the studio cited RAM on the PS3 was the issue. Whether the RAM was responsible for the washed out colours isn't the point however, as the PS3 was designed not to need high amounts of RAM and still run high-end games perfectly, but when games are built on the 360, it causes problems bringing them over, but these problems don't exist if the process is reversed.
I'm curious as to the views of the general community whether or not cross-platform games should be developed for the PS3 first in the name of equality, or keep things as they are so the developers keep more change in their pockets.
TLDR: Do you think developers should spend the extra money and develop for the PS3 first then port to the 360 so that both versions are of equal quality, or keep things the same with the PS3 ports often inferior to their 360 counterparts, but the total cost of development is cheaper?
Since my 360 has been on the fritz and is still in the process of being repaired, I began to look to the future for when it will inevitably suicide again. A lot of people say that the easy solution is to sell your games, wipe a tear away for the exclusives, and buy cross-platform ones back on the PS3. A simple enough solution but this brings me to the topic's main point.
Generally nowadays if a game is released on both systems I will opt for the PS3 version, though a recent exception was Ghostbusters and I was going to get Assassin's Creed II for 360 as well but once the Xbox died I moved to the safer, albeit inferior option. Now what lead me to this discussion was simply browsing the ebgames Australia website for the boxart to Final Fantasy XIII, since I was curious as to the rating it received down under after the Americans were granted the usual T rating. Seeing the game got me thinking about this whole issue. Funny how things happen like that sometimes.
Now despite my protest that FFXIII shouldn't be on the 360 at all, the fact is that it's a cross-platform game done right. The game was initially developed on the PS3 and then ported to the 360. This ensures that both versions are equal and no one has to complain or feel that they are receiving an inferior version. The reason this isn't done all the time is because since the PS3 is more difficult to design for, it's more expensive, hence developers choose to build the game on the 360 first and then port to the PS3 afterwards. Now using Ghostbusters as an example, the colour of the PS3 version is much more washed out than on the Xbox, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that the studio cited RAM on the PS3 was the issue. Whether the RAM was responsible for the washed out colours isn't the point however, as the PS3 was designed not to need high amounts of RAM and still run high-end games perfectly, but when games are built on the 360, it causes problems bringing them over, but these problems don't exist if the process is reversed.
I'm curious as to the views of the general community whether or not cross-platform games should be developed for the PS3 first in the name of equality, or keep things as they are so the developers keep more change in their pockets.
