Ubisoft says: Splinter Cell Conviction couldn't be on PS3?
Someone's cooking up some flamebait, right? Wrong. This is just an interesting, confusing interview with Ubisoft about the newest Splinter Cell (which seems to have turned into a yearly franchise). The game, subtitled Conviction, is headed exclusively to the XBox 360. That's all well and good, but why did they need to talk about the PS3?
What did they say, actually? They claimed that since they're an exclusive now, they can work a lot harder on the 360's hardware and pull out some tricks they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. They said regardless, they wouldn't have been able to do these things even if they were exclusive to the PlayStation 3. Well... maybe, but they did a pretty crappy port of Double Agent, so we're not about to agree. Just because you don't understand the tools available doesn't mean it isn't possible to build a masterpiece. Thoughts?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
massive_98 @ May 7th 2007 6:34PM
I wish more devolopers would do this. I think shooters work better with the 360. But Sandbox games such as Mercs:2 and GTA:IV are better suited to the PS3.
Games are better if they are only one platform!
RobG @ May 7th 2007 6:37PM
Ubisoft is quickly becoming one of the top game studios and if this quote is in context I would say it holds some weight. Afterall this is the same company (yes different dev team) that is creating assassins creed. I'm sure they know a thing or two about the PS3 within that company and obviously don't like developing on it because it is needlessly difficult.
Ben @ May 7th 2007 6:38PM
Well said, masive_98
And too everybody else who will inevitably post a comment on this story-yes, this is probably going to start a flamewar, but before you flame, do your research. Dont post ignorant comments that are not true about either 360 or PS3. I myself dont really have that much of an opinion, but I would enjoy a lively debate that included lots of FACTS. But hell, thats probably wishful thinking.
Dustin @ May 7th 2007 6:39PM
When my PSN buddies said this I said that developers are lazy. The PS3's structure is every complicated and will take awhile to figure out. Plus, the lack of RAM might be one problem they are running into.
stockstar1138 @ May 7th 2007 6:51PM
heres the difference. factor 5 gave specific details on why lair isn't possible. all ubisoft did is say, yep its not possible, no details on why. sounds like flaimbait and bs. ubisoft has been the worst porter to date. EA is better at porting a game, i don't hold this comapny in high credibility right now in regards to developing for ps3, maybe when i see ac that will change.
massive_98 @ May 7th 2007 6:56PM
People have responded so quickly to this post, thanks Ben I agree with you. I don't actually think this is going to turn into a fanboy war. 360 cats are not going to rub this one in the PS3's face. It's
NOT
a system breaker like Halo or GTA. Sorry forgot to type it.
dammenion @ May 7th 2007 6:57PM
Reason why Ubisoft isn't as credible is they have already shown complete inability to developer on anything other then 360.
They are only admitting their own lack on skills. More in line with game design not engine programing and polishing. Their past PS3 efforts already shine in their limited skills.
I only pray that Assassins Creed's team isn't as point and click limited skill set as the Splinter team is.
KillarClown @ May 7th 2007 6:58PM
i think Ubisoft is right. You couldn't run out of disc space on the ps3... you couldn't cause the red ring of death on the ps3 (which would be my goal if i made a game for 360.. there has to be some "achievement" for that).. you also couldn't release a native 1080p game-no wait that's M$ upscalling to 1080p.. my bad
Trev @ May 7th 2007 6:58PM
@5/6
I don't know. Some of the things we've seen makes it seem less credible. GTA4 comes to mind. Lair is looking pretty amazing. DMC4 is supposedly the same on both consoles. The fact that Assassin's Creed, from the same company, is going to be on both makes it suspect.
It just sounds like they wanted to justify exclusivity, which isn't necessary. It's just an exclusive, no reason necessary.
I'm not going to jump to "OMG MS PAID THEM TO SAY IT" because that's just dumb, but they prefer developing for the 360 and may or may not have put time into the PS3's fancy EDGE dev tools, or maybe they have and their preference for the 360 still had them put more effort into it.
silence @ May 7th 2007 7:00PM
I would say it's the Video Memory or that this is a counter story to last weeks GTA comment...
either way I can't wait to play this Spinter Cell!
muppetmeth @ May 7th 2007 7:00PM
Keep your damn Splinter Cell, as long as MGS4 stays exclusive to PS3, I'll be a happy boy.
massive_98 @ May 7th 2007 7:07PM
I tried playing MGS:3 just about an hour ago. It took me 1 hour to find the backpack attached to the tree. Too hard if you ask me.
stockstar1138 @ May 7th 2007 7:12PM
thats what gamefaqs.com is for.
Mark Green @ May 7th 2007 7:12PM
I am a PS3 owner and a huge Splinter Cell fan (since the first installment).
I think game exclusives are not in the best interest of gamers. If I want to play Splinter Cell's next title, then I have to buy a Microsoft XBOX360? Look, I am a dedicated Splinter Cell fan, but spend another $400-500 bucks for another console that I will have no use for when done with the Splinter Cell game? I don't think so. Even fanboys like me can do the economics...
I understand the thought behind it .... some gamer, who has not yet bought a "next generation" console, may take this into account in terms of which console to buy. O.K., from the console's standpoint, I can see why they might pay big money for an exclusive.... yet, aren't you neglecting the millions of gamers that will own PS3's?
However, this is basically Ubisoft's collective "$%#@ off" to dedicated fans on other consoles.
They spent all of this money investing in a Playstation fanbase. Yet now, they are only going to serve the Microsoft XBox360 fanbase? Thanks!!! Glad to know I invested so much in your franchise...
I hear the line that this will allow them to focus on developing a great game. Maybe so. However, you end up leaving a huge contingent of your fan base out in the cold.
The reality is that the next generation consoles are expensive (yes, the Wii is less expensive than the other two, but $295 is still not yet pocket change for the majority of gamers). The average gamer - even fanboy- is unlikely to buy two consoles.
Thanks Ubisoft. I will seriously re-consider purchasing any Ubisoft title in the future. After all, I would hate to invest any substantial amount of time or money in a franchise of yours only to see myself excluded from a future installment again.
Realize @ May 7th 2007 7:27PM
Lost In Translation: Splinter Cell Conviction Possible on PS3!"
http://n4g.com/News-38137.aspx
mrgsc @ May 7th 2007 7:28PM
I believe that Team Ninja made it a point that most designers who complained of the PS3 being too difficult to develop for were just to lazy to try to learn the PS3's tools...He also stated that Team Ninja's philosophy was to create the best game on that system....period. It would seem that Ubisoft, while capable of creating good games, has overgrown it's roots and, becoming a European EA, has resorted to half-assed ports because their programmers are to incompetent to do a decent job. I have a 360 and the last Splinter Cell was aweful....I have other ways to waste my money...
Realize @ May 7th 2007 7:29PM
Lost In Translation: Splinter Cell Conviction Possible on PS3!"
Source:
http://n4g.com/News-38137.aspx
a.j. @ May 7th 2007 7:56PM
who gives a f_ck. splinter cell is about as tired as the tony hawk series and the "yearly' release thing they seem to be doing isn't going to help. i own both systems and wouldn't buy it on either at this point. more more more = zzzzzzz.
massive_98 @ May 7th 2007 8:02PM
I agree. Once you have played one Splinter Cell you played them all.
Good work folks. This hasn't become a fanboy war. Yay!
Ben @ May 7th 2007 8:13PM
So after reading all these comments and being impressed that the commenters were acting mature, I traveled to Xbox360 Fanboy. To my surprise, aside from a few ignorant posters, there was also a mature conversation. People had facts about the actual hardware of both consoles, and they are having a good debate with almost no fanboyishness. I encourage you all to go check it out.
Seriously though. I think this is a big day for both sites. We managed to have the same, potential flamewar starting story on both sites, and neither evolved into an ignorant, immature, spitefest. Everybody, give yourself a pat on the back.
Killer @ May 7th 2007 8:20PM
No console bashing, yet alot of game bashing. How about no bashing. That sounds good. Personally I'll take Spinter Cell over MGS, but that's me. I'm not going to go out on a hate crazy like some of the other post here saying that "Splinter Cell Sucks @$$!" I just find it funny that some people when they hear something that a company says about their console, go right to saying everything that company does sucks. Let's get some maturity here. Just because, they expressed their obvious opinion.
Doesn't mean all out war.
DukeFett @ May 7th 2007 8:28PM
"also couldn't release a native 1080p game-no wait that's M$ upscalling to 1080p.. my bad"
That's funny, seeing as the only retail 1080p games for either system, are the same damn 2 games, perhaps you should know what you're talking about first.
OrganicShadow @ May 7th 2007 8:30PM
I like how everyone is using indirect evidence as proof of PS3 being "teh sux". "360 game X was ported to PS3 and the PS3 version ran worse and looked worse. that automatically means PS3 isn't capable of things the 360 is."
Forgive me for not having a link, but I remember a widely known multiplat dev recently stating that it makes more sense to develop on PS3 as your main platform, and then port to PC and/or 360, as it's easier to go from 7 SPE's to 3 or 1, and from non-unified ram to unified ram. Makes buttloads of logical sense to do it that way, so in essence it's really developers faults for putting 360/PC versions first and PS3 version as secondary because they could have not only saved themselves the headache but actually gotten all 3 versions out at within weeks of each other, if not simultaneously.
The fact that the capabilities of the PS3 and 360 are still debatable in forums across the internets is proof enough that there is hardly a difference at all to really matter. The kind of fud these developers are spreading, and yes quite possibly Factor 5 included, is because they want MONEY. Putting out the next SC on 360/PC-only and then "oops....yes, it's also coming to PS3" later on will get them a huge spike of cash at first and then a good follow up of buyers that missed the game the first time. This generations exclusives are going to be about nothing but MONEY- not power, not capabilities, none of that(except waggle).
mccomber @ May 7th 2007 9:45PM
It's not too far out of a concept, afterall both systems have strengths and weaknesses. As others point out, I wonder how much of it would be due to not knowing, as opposed to flat-out not able, but whatever. Any game built to take full advantage of any of the three systems "wouldn't be possible" on the other two because of their differences. Besides, we've yet to see what either system is truly capable of, so stuff like this could easily be a matter of "right now, with the tools we have..." more than anything. I bet that if developers had been shown GoW2 or GTA:SA when the ps2 first came out, many would have thought they were impossible given the tools and knowledge they had at the time.
Right now, how about more info about this latest round of lost in translation as posted by Realize? The way rumours and such spread as fact these days I wouldn't be surprised by that either.
John @ May 7th 2007 9:58PM
We saw Ubisoft coming a mile away. They have consistently shown not only Microsoft support, but poor programming on the ps3, then choosing to say that it couldn't handle it, when they didn't bother writing software tools to take advantage of the ps3's strengths.
This smells of really nasty Microsoft involvement.
But of course, things like this lead to certain positives.
People who code only for xbox360 are going to make great games, for that machine, and those who code exclusively for ps3 will do the same.
This happened during the ps2/xbox phase.
If a company coded for both systems, the better game tended to fall to the system with the most power/easiest to program.
But there was no ratchet and clank on xbox, and that game, and Gran Turismo 4, both looked gorgeous and ran at a smooth 60fps... that's because those programmers, devoted to the system, were able to use the extra vf0 and vf1 chips in the ps2 to do what they would, with them-- they're highly configurable, but you have to be able to program in assembly language.
So the only bad news here is the negative rap Ubisoft is giving Sony, which is understandable knowing their allegiance; but the same thing is happening on the other side, with Rockstar lamenting the absence of Blu-Ray, and the Ninja Gaiden people lauding the power of cell.
I'm curious about that new DOA5 coming out... DOA4, according to it's developers, supposedly taxed the xbox360 to it's limits, and they were said to have burned up some test machines in the process... but we never heard that from the guys who made Gears of War, which is more impressive.
Ultimately, if a developer understands a machine and has good production, they will make good games on that machine.
When a developer (EA, etc.) tries to do both machines, they inevitably take shortcuts on one or the other.
mccomber @ May 7th 2007 10:55PM
Very true Scott, but I don't think you've entirely got the right reasoning for why it's popular/smarter to develop for the 360 then port; the 360 is easier to develop for, regardless of the install base. If they plan on developing for both first, AND actually want to make a good ps3 title, they'll start there. If they want to just put it out on both, and make money on the ps3 owners that are out there, they'll start on the easier system and then port from there.
We've already seen that there can be good ports where the differences are minimal. That will likely hold true with numerous titles, and there really isn't any reason for it not to work out that way if developers want it to.
At this point the titles that have been ported poorly weren't exactly pushing either system, so the reason for their poor performance on the ps3 would seem to be easily summed up with 'lazy developers". FEAR was a good game, but can you honestly say it was pushing anything hardware wise, and that there was a good reason why from a pure technical standpoint, it didn't turn out properly on the ps3?
Thomas @ May 8th 2007 1:44AM
My thing is... and this goes for all companies... if you're going to say that something isn't possible on the ps3, or 360, then explain your point throughly... explain exactly what the problem is...
and I'm hoping that Ubisoft gives the ps3 an exclusive game and I hope that they use the ps3 specific features that can't be touched by the xbox 360...
Wes @ May 8th 2007 2:31AM
Thomas, there is a pretty good post on xbox360fanboys.
Hmm, I believe its post number 44 on a post about this same article. You'd have to go to page '2' of the xbox 360 news to find it, but its a fairly indepth technical explanation of the pros and cons of each system.
If you want information about the technical advantages of one versus the other, its a good read though it takes about 15 minutes and 25 minutes if you open all the citations/sources referenced.
KillarClown @ May 8th 2007 10:15AM
DukeFett.. I do know what i'm talking about.. M$ upscales from their DVD drive while SONY uses a true HD player (blue) so this "same game" is displayed differently on each console.. and frankly i don't like the machine having to use resources to upscale when it could be used to add power to a game.
Josh @ May 8th 2007 10:36AM
"DukeFett.. I do know what i'm talking about.. M$ upscales from their DVD drive while SONY uses a true HD player (blue) so this "same game" is displayed differently on each console.. and frankly i don't like the machine having to use resources to upscale when it could be used to add power to a game."
Well that post just showed that you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.
You could have a game that fits on a CD-ROM that renders at 1080p.
Both the PS3 and the 360 have the ability to render 3D games at a 1920x1080 resolution. However, neither one can do this with a ton of geometry on the screen. This is why the only 1080p games that are out there for both systems are sports games without a lot of action on the screen.
The media that the game is delivered on only dictates the overall size of the game, not the resolution at which the game is rendered.
justincoool @ May 8th 2007 12:50PM
but every guy here knows, the most important parts of the game will run on ps3, and the graphics would be excellent, versus gorgeous.....who cares.......give me metal gear 4!
Wild Style @ May 8th 2007 1:01PM
UBI is on a downward spiral right now in my opinion. Rainbow Six looked aweful. GRAW looked like a high end PC game and splinter cell was so so. My point is, for them to say the PS3 isn't capable when I have seen games from other developers that blow away anything that UBI has done to date on either system, I have to question their credibility.
alecks @ May 8th 2007 5:38PM
Thank god that splinter cell sucks hard, especially compared to any mgs game. Anyone who disagrees with this dont know shit about good stealth games.
Also to the guy who said it took an hour to find the backpack at the start of mgs3- did you try searching the area and perhaps LOOKING AT THE SCREEN? Maybe stealth games arent for you buddy...sorry if that sounds harsh but its true!
oldxskoolxhollywood @ May 8th 2007 8:50PM
typical ps3fanboy. the ps3 gets criticized by a major developer and you guys are all upset? you guys have some nerve complaining about a remark made about the ps3's awful development process, when you guys comment on every one of the 360's faults without 360fanboy ever retaliating. so now youre on the receiving end. so what? its not ubi's fault. its $ony's....
jeremy.d.howell @ May 8th 2007 9:40PM
double agent sucked anyways
jeremy.d.howell @ May 8th 2007 9:59PM
I actually really liked the splinter cell franchise up to double agent, which was an utter let down. It forced SC off my list of "must own"
Justin @ May 9th 2007 12:07AM
double agent was a disappointment. i'm not really looking forward to this game. although i might try it out just because its SC
david burns @ Jun 17th 2007 2:39PM
i think ubsoft is bs on this one. ps and xbox has served splinter cell well. i do belive ms had something to do with this 1. i hahve ps3 and enjoy sc. but i am going to have to put that behind me and look forward to mgs4 and gta4. mgs4r was built for ps3 b ut is going to be on 360. you guys are right ubsoft is lazy
splinter cell no.1 fan!!! @ Jun 26th 2007 3:53PM
this is the most stupid thing i ever heard!!!!! thre is absolutley no reason why splinter cell conviction should not be on PS3!!!!i spent 600 euro on my PS3 and now i cant get the sequel to my favourite game!!!!well ubisoft can just go fuck themselves!!!!!!!!!!!