Burnout Paradise: PS3 development makes better 360 game

by Nick Doerr { Nov 30th 2007 at 9:30AM }

Burnout Paradise is being developed with the PS3 as the lead platform. Nick Channon, brains behind the game, sat down recently and made a few comments about what this means for the 360. As we know, 360 developed games end up with sub-par ports to the PS3 due to the different architectures and whatnot, but what about PS3 developed titles? Channon believes developing games on the PS3 first will actually make an impressive move onto the 360 -- making the game better on the 360 than if developed on the 360 alone. It's less complicated than it sounds.

At least, that's how we'd like to interpret his quote about leading development on PS3: "From our point of view, we've had no issues with dealing with either machine; that's what I mean by that. It seems that some games haven't always transitioned between the two well. From our perspective leading on Playstation3 has meant Xbox 360 has given us a great product." What do you guys think? Is he saying the PS3 will make ports to 360 a lot more successful than vice-versa, or something else?

Tags: burnout-paradise

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Jay @ Nov 30th 2007 9:43AM

all i know is that i hope microsoft will pull out of the video game market. their 360 degrees console got them right back where they started. the ps3 is head & shoulders better. period

Kenology @ Nov 30th 2007 10:28AM

Dude, you're not even saying anything relevant to the article... Fanboyism really isn't healthy.

Anyways, so basically, what I'm getting from this is that the 360 doesn't suffer from not being the lead console whereas the PS3 evidently does when the 360 is the lead console. If anything, this is good news for 360 owners.

Dehshizknight @ Nov 30th 2007 8:44PM

You realize what site you're on, right? Of course readers of PS3Fanboy.com are gonna want the PS3 to have the better game.

Maybe you should take your on advice about ..."fanboyism" and what it can do to you.

SmokestormX @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:52AM

Totally fanboyism, he didn't even say anything relevent to the article, lol.

But I dont see how developing for the PS3 will make the 360 any better at all, I think this is just wishful thinking. If developed for the PS3 it will be better on the PS3 and at best , the 360 port will be normal and none the better for it.

Plus this really wouldn't work well , because as time goes on I would hope to see the PS3 developing better and better games, so the gap between the 2 consoles might grow bigger.

jay @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:59AM

i think you people took my comments too seriously... and yeah this is ps3fanboys dumbys. laugh it up and if not then dont damn it. anyways scince your all craving for something relevant to the story, il tell you why it makes better 360 games... because the ps3 is harder to work for and once you dominate 100 pushups, doung 20 wont be hard. get the point? once u dominate the hardest console, its all downhill from there. there. you all happy now? will you get off from the fan boy thing? geez

SmokestormX @ Dec 3rd 2007 9:40AM

alright, no more fanboyism..

but a push-up analogy, seriously..

WTangoFoxtrot @ Nov 30th 2007 9:45AM

we have all known that for a while. MS chose the processor to make the life easier on the developer and this shows us just that, PS3 games can also make it onto the 360 with relative ease. now if only Sony had the sense to place a less complicated processor in their machine the PS3 would have been enjoying a lot of good games by now.

Sauvage @ Nov 30th 2007 9:55AM

It makes sense to develop on the harder and more spacious platform first and then cut-down bits to fit onto a DVD. But in all cases you have to make sure you engine can scale elegantly in either direction. Planning my boys that's what it takes.

Organic_Shadow @ Nov 30th 2007 10:06AM

He means that with PS3-->360, the 360 being the 'ported to' platform, the 'ported to' platform doesn't experience very much degradation in the quality of the game build.

Whereas with 360-->PS3 development, the 'ported to' platform here does receive some degradation in the quality of the game build, due to the different architectures and memory setups.

I think the MAIN PROBLEM here is that 360 devs aren't really optimizing that well because they're using the edram is a crutch. They just throw everything into the ram till it's full. With PS3-custom games like Ratchet, they meticulously calculate how big each item going into ram is going to be so that everything can fit into two 256mb partitions.

So when making the game for PS3 first, they end up doing the optimization for the 360 by default since they already had to do it for PS3's split ram. Also supposedly it's easier going from CELL to xenon or whatever than vice versa, so take that with a grain of salt seeing as some PS3-exclusive developers said it.

Trev @ Nov 30th 2007 10:42AM

If I understand correctly, the reason PS3 -> 360 ports are easier is consolidating/breaking up tasks. For the Cell's SPU's, it would take a lot of work to break up processes to run on them if the game was designed to run on the 360's CPU. Most developers don't take the time to make this run well (for whatever reason, price, time, lack of effort) and the ports end up weak.

Taking the smaller threads and making them run on a more capable processor like the CPU in the 360 (much more capable than a single SPU) is easy and probably how it would have been structured anyway.

preciousdeath @ Nov 30th 2007 10:07AM

Criterion is a solid developer. They are pros at learning the architecture and not compromising regardless of the platform. Too bad more developers don't follow suit.

PS3Lee @ Nov 30th 2007 10:08AM

It makes perfect sense to me, to make a game on the most powerful console first which in turn would translate down the chain to other consoles alot easier.
I have to say I am getting very excited by this new burnout addition, I just hope they bring back some of the original addictive qualities found in the earlier versions.
Do we have a firm (well as firm as possible!) release date for this in the UK yet ?

T-P-M @ Nov 30th 2007 10:16AM

Or maybe he means pretend its a PS3 exclusive, and MS will throw money at you to bring it to the 360. Thus "Xbox 360 has given us a great product." is literal (They paid for it ) :)

L @ Nov 30th 2007 10:22AM

god some of you going on about maken the game on the PS3 because it has more power?,,,,,,, emmm wrong if any thing you would make the game on the less powerfull system ..but thats not the point here

THis all comes back to what Organic_Shadow said its all to do with the System and GFX ram ,....

Ps3 has two 256mb Pools
XBox 360 has one 512mb Pool where both CPU-GFX Share......Which is better gives the dev a choice!

rawd @ Nov 30th 2007 10:30AM

Dont you think Sony did this by design.. each module is tweaked for its purpose? ...

Imagine a PC with vidcard ram lumped together and sharing the mobo ram.. not efficient at all

WTangoFoxtrot @ Nov 30th 2007 10:37AM

untrue rawd. AMD is planning its future processors to have the GPU on the same die as the CPU and this sill utilize shared RAM. its a much neater solution mate.

think about it. right now if u have a video card ur stuck with the amount of memory it comes with. but if the memory is shared with the cpu u can upgrade it to whatever you can afford. that would be much more flexible.

rawd @ Nov 30th 2007 10:42AM

if the GPU and CPU are on the same die then I agree with you... but on the current hardware in question, they are not... each chip should have its own proprietary ram

L @ Nov 30th 2007 10:53AM

"Dont you think Sony did this by design.. each module is tweaked for its purpose?"

The real answer is no...... at one point the PS3 was only going to have a CELL cpu and 256mb ram =S..... last min thing just to stick a GFX card of any sort in.....
Still i wait on my 120FPS games =P

Don,t get me wrong here .. I think its better for the Ps3 that the games are made for it 1st ...that way we all win

Kenban @ Nov 30th 2007 11:14AM

rawd the 360's design works because the GPU does have some dedicated ram. There is 10MB of ram inside the chip (not sure if its on the same die or two dies tied together). This small amount of ram greatly lowers the GPU's need for memory bandwidth.

Trev @ Nov 30th 2007 11:33AM

You can't just throw something like that in. Its in by design. It's called a design change, L. Kind of like adding HDMI, or "Falcon" and the upcoming "Jasper".

The Cell-only PS3 prototype was like a concept car. It also had 2 HDMI ports and a 3-port gigabit wireless router in it, as long as we're bringing up stuff from 2005 like 120fps. That kind of thing happens when you put someone like Kutaragi, a very forward-thinking engineer, in charge of designing something: it comes out expensive and fancy, probably a bit too much of both. It's like having a really hardcore PC gamer pick out computer parts for you. You'll end up with some liquid-cooled, raid-0, dual dual-core SLI'd 8800GTX machine that costs some stupid amount and is way more than you need to play Homeworld 2. So you cut it back a bit (like they did with the PS3) and then you have a still expensive and still high-performance system, but its a little less absurd than it was at the start.

Sammy @ Nov 30th 2007 11:33AM

It seems this can be taken two ways. Considering I have recently read an interview with Criterion. I get the impression they like the PS3 as a piece of hardware and even said they felt there was a long way to go before they tapped out the full potential of the hardware. I think taking in to account that the PS3 is a more complex piece of hardware due to its processor setup, then it is probably easier to rechannel the information into a simpler system design. That does not really say anything about the potential power of either console. It is a positive for the 360 currently in terms of porting power. Microsoft really have an edge over everyone when it comes to tools, being the sole player in the gaming OS for PCs.
But in regards to which system is more capable when software is tailored for it is still yet to be discovered, whatever 'fanboys' want to say.

I think in the near future the porting issues will be a thing of the past as developers get more familiar with the PS3 hardware and how best to adapt games for both consoles.
This has already started to happen.

Brian Spence @ Nov 30th 2007 11:51AM

If true, this will likely mean lower development costs, and best of all, better PS3 games!

ajiezer @ Nov 30th 2007 12:38PM

Well I do not know anything of game programming but how can that be done? By reducing graphics, compressing data? Well who knows but it's nice to know that the game will be built for the PS3 considering it's hardware and not a lame port from other system

Efeez1986 @ Nov 30th 2007 12:42PM

I'm tired of all you 360 fanboys on here. It has already been confirmed by countless people that PS3 is more powerful than 360, so stop crying. The PS3 is not hard to develop for, the process is just different than the 360 and PC. Too many big name developers already came out and said this, including Epic Games(Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3). A lot of developers even said that they love the hardware and the structure of the PS3, despite all these magazines have been saying. The reason PS3 has a "few" bad ports is because some developers are just lazy, and don't really try to make the game work well on the PS3. This has also been said by lots of big name developers.

Ants @ Nov 30th 2007 3:23PM

it has also been said that the 360 can run better grfx than a ps3. ur point? (sorry i dont have the link to it, but it was mentioned on joystiq a couple weeks ago.)

MikeStan28 @ Nov 30th 2007 7:17PM

Please believe me when I say I love my PS3 and don't own an Xbox but you're talking like an idiot;

Just because a system is more powerful does not make it better, good games need to be generated to allow the machine to do its thing.

Did you play Wii sports? a great experience even though the visuals were last gen. MotorStorm and Resistance; both great games; I'm also sure they would have looked and played great on the 360 if they'd been developed for that (& as for PS3 Halo3 if it exsted...).

my point is that power isn't everything and there's no point in hating what you're not playing...

Ninegauger @ Nov 30th 2007 1:05PM

Well, before you all get too excited I'm going to tell you a story. There was a console that came out a year before its competitors and there was no question that it was an inferior console... noticeably crappier graphics, no standard hard drive etc... well, that year head start gave them a higher install base on their competitor with the standard hard drive and the better graphics.

Who do you think got the shoddy ports? Well, it was the more powerful system... the original Xbox.

The Xbox got shoddy ports not up to the potential of system.

Now, from my understanding, the PS2 was more difficult to program for than the Xbox... now imagine that the system with the larger install base is easier to program for.

I'm just saying I wouldn't expect the shoddy ports to ever cease to be a problem for the PS3.

Macrike @ Nov 30th 2007 1:32PM

I tried the game yesterday and it was great. Constant 60fps,
nice visuals and gameplay. Completly no loading times, and instant
online play with no frontend or menus.

It's a must-have for sure.

Nate @ Nov 30th 2007 4:18PM

This is the second almost identical post from this guy that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. What's up with that? Bot? Plant from some spam company?

Macrike @ Nov 30th 2007 4:25PM

WTF are you talking about? o_O

I believe my comment IS on topic.
PD: GTFO

Nate @ Nov 30th 2007 4:41PM

You posted the *exact same* text in the "Sony Crackstation" article, which wasn't even about a game at all.

You posted that same text in this thread, which is about a comment from a developer, not about a game. At best it briefly mentions a game, which isn't even out yet, so you obviously haven't posted it.

I guess it could be your attempt at humor, if so, my apologies.

Nate @ Nov 30th 2007 4:41PM

er "obviously haven't played it" (typo)

Macrike @ Nov 30th 2007 4:48PM

I'm sorry, but I made a mistake before. I didn't think it got posted since I had to confirm the comment by email, and I didn't.

So when I noticed that I posted the comment on the wrong thread, I came over here to paste it and send it.

And yes I did play it, and I also spoke to Nick. Believe if you wish, I really don't care.

Nate @ Nov 30th 2007 5:33PM

Ok, my apologies. It just looked really strange, and I've seen bots/plants that do similar things before, so I jumped the gun.

Glad to hear that the game sounds so good. Instant online and no loading times will make it very fun to pick up and play.

Emrah @ Nov 30th 2007 2:52PM

If I was a 360 fanboy, I'd immediately note how xbox360 can handle anything PS3 can handle, with ease, and that reverse was not true (so if you plan with 360 in mind, PS3 suffers, if you plan with PS3 in mind, Xbox has no problems)

However, I am not, but this shows that the platforms are somewhat equal in performance. (Yet, I am not sure how Konami managed to get ProEvolution Soccer to fall to 30 and even 15 fps on closeups, that should absolutely have nothing to do with Cell, but RSX, so maybe RSX is not all that good, I hope I am wrong)

Nate @ Nov 30th 2007 4:33PM

There's no proof of that. What we have is ports from 360 to PS3 that don't do as well. That doesn't mean the PS3 can't "handle" it. It just means that the code was optimized for the 360 and not for the PS3. It's not like we're talking about something as straight forward as a bench press, where there aren't any factors except the weight of the barbell.

It's pretty easy to write code that'll be blazingly fast on one of the consoles and stupidly slow on the other. A single threaded app that needs 450 megs of memory all at once to run will run great on the 360, and will be a lot slower on the PS3. However, an app that heavily uses 6 concurrent threads and a lower memory threshold for each will run much faster on the PS3.

When most people say "More Powerful", they mean better textures, higher resolution, better AI, better physics, and more objects on screen. How exactly you balance those things against each other in order to determine "better overall" makes a big difference.

Only time will tell if the PS3's hardware will be "more powerful" than the 360's. Right now they seem fairly equivalent, neither one really blowing away the other. Maybe the competition from the PS3 will force the 360 devs to squeeze more out of that hardware, or maybe as the PS3 devs get more used to that hardware and optimize more for it, its architecture will prove to be superior.

No one can know, so please, keep the unfounded comments to a minimum.

Emrah @ Nov 30th 2007 5:36PM

Nate, it is true that you should not come to such a conclusion from the information at hand, and I support the idea that the two consoles are similar in power, if you carefully read my comments.

However, I still believe one thing that is being overlooked is the RSX, it simply seems the bottleneck of PS3. (They state they are using 30% of CELL's power for Uncharted, I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. It just hints that CELL can do a lot but RSX cannot handle it, remember, the game runs at 30fps and sometimes frames drop, if RSX was twice as fast, CELL could still feed RSX at 60fps, but it can't)

Greyseal @ Nov 30th 2007 2:53PM

Efeez1986:"I'm tired of all you 360 fanboys on here. It has already been confirmed by countless people that PS3 is more powerful than 360.... This has also been said by lots of big name developers."

I love it when one breed of fanboy gets angry at another. The irony is good enough to eat.