SCEA VP: PS3 native dev means better looking 360 games
When asked about whether developers of third party titles will switch to the PS3 as the native development platform, SCEA's Vice President of Product marketing cites Burnout Paradise as "a great example of a game that shipped fairly recently that showed what you can do if you start originally on PS3" and that "as they realize that if you start on the PS3 other platforms look better, it starts to become a no-brainer." That's the mantra Sony's been promoting since GDC, when they introduced PhyreEngine.
With major multiplatform titles like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge declaring PS3 as its lead development platform, we'll soon have points of comparison to either validate or debunk Steinberg's statements.
[Thanks, DarkJ3JB and lee!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SSG @ Jul 31st 2008 7:13PM
third
stargateheaven @ Jul 31st 2008 7:41PM
A refreshing change. lol.
Phantom @ Jul 31st 2008 7:15PM
It makes sense , the PS3 is very hard to develop for , now that develepors have had some practise , it would be MUCH easier to port from the PS3 to the 360 than the other way around , and of course , somehow , this would make both version look better .
stargateheaven @ Jul 31st 2008 8:30PM
Yeah but lazy people like still alive developers, this won't mean a thing to them! :(
Jdaman @ Jul 31st 2008 7:34PM
His comment is not that starting on PS3 then porting is the easiest multi-platform path. He is saying that starting on PS3 will make your 360 games look better.
I mean come on that is a very foolish statement. If Dead Space or Mirror's Edge look better then Gears of War 2 then he can start making that claim.
Chris @ Aug 1st 2008 6:42AM
Agreed, jdaman. Actually the article quotes him as saying "I think." He doesn't even say why. Well then that's completely unproven and isn't going to convince anyone at all. PS3Fanboy was foolish to title the article on that.
On the other hand it makes sense starting development on PS3 because it's easier to put 6 running threads together onto two (however many cores 360 has) than it is to chop and slice two threads onto 6 cores. The again, for what it's worth, the games don't look or behave differently very often anyway.
XeroKool @ Jul 31st 2008 7:22PM
Oh, really?
heckteck @ Jul 31st 2008 7:24PM
this is what we do now?.......rehash old news
Jack Tretton @ Jul 31st 2008 7:39PM
"...Xbox 360 games will start to look better as a result."
"Will start" to look better? What's this guy's point of reference, Operation: Darkness?
Multi-plat 360/PS3 games look practically identical. It's the Wii versions that are easy to spot.
Volomon @ Jul 31st 2008 8:04PM
It's like way over your guys head isn't it. Even though they look identical, they actually are not, but lets go on the assumption that they are exactly identical. The improvement in graphics on both consoles is because of the port from PS3 down. Since the graphics bar on the PS3 is higher the Xbox360 benefits from the dev trying to figure out how to manage the same thing on the Xbox 360. Basically looking at it they are pushing the limits of what the Xbox360 can do by keeping up with the PS3.
monkeywithnoeyes @ Jul 31st 2008 9:23PM
yeah, good in theory.. but the simple fact is that if we take that theory and turn it the other way around to how it is now, then it means that are trying to push the limits of what the ps3 can do by trying to keep up with the 360. Because at the moment the power of the cell in a myth.. its simply not going to survive a 10yr plan when the undeniable truth is that most multiplatform games perform better and look better on the 360. Thats not because the 360 being the lead platform is holding the ps3 back..its because the developers are struggling to get the same results out of the console.
Arnon @ Aug 1st 2008 1:30AM
Volomon.. we don't need to think of this concept.. -especially- if they look identical. Even if one is slightly better.. no one will ever see the difference unless they stare really hard. So honestly? What does it matter?
Jack Tretton @ Aug 1st 2008 9:15AM
@Volomon
I don't know how to break it to you, but you couldn't pick the difference between the same game running on a 360 and PS3, sitting 10-15 feet from identical 37" or 42" HDTVs, the consoles and televisions both tuned and configured to present as closely as possible the exact same picture. All you could do was guess.
Nate @ Aug 3rd 2008 10:55PM
@ Jack
you're still not getting it. forcing yourself to work with the ps3 makes you program differently. A good example is Oblivion, which off the disk looks better on ps3 then the xbox 360 version. It took a while longer, to change the way certain things were handled (like textures), and they figured out how to have the graphics load faster - and THEN pushed it to the pc and xbox 360 versions, making those faster too.
the xbox puts a lot of things into one basket, (fewer threads, combined memory, etc), while the ps3, roughly speaking, seperates those out. one of the things that makes it a pain in the @$$ to code for, but when you do you can improve the xbox version. if the xbox 360 is your lead though, you have to split those up in strange ways, whish is a bigger pain in the @$$, and you comprimise. Both can improve with a ps3 lead, not one keeping up with the other.
Vii @ Jul 31st 2008 7:45PM
Someone please inform Gabe Newell about this development. By the way, all those in favor of boycotting all future Valve products?
leatherface @ Jul 31st 2008 8:09PM
fck valve.
StaticKevin @ Jul 31st 2008 11:55PM
Yeah man, Newell is a prick.
Oh, and Valve doesn't release anything that appeals to me, so I guess I'll boycott them either way.
But he's still a prick!
danielhalan @ Aug 1st 2008 3:34AM
The guy got his first millions from Microsoft, so who can blaim him of beeing bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Newell
Luke @ Aug 1st 2008 9:20AM
Valve are fucking awesome and their games are meant for the PC, I couldn't care less if they don't want to release games on the PS3. They are best with the PC platform, if they only want to take on the job of also developing for the 360 that is their choice, I'm just glad they are one of the few developers left prioritizing the PC.
Long live Valve.
Vii @ Jul 31st 2008 7:48PM
Someone want to email this article to Valve? Or perhaps that fat fuck Gabe Newell directly?
Vii @ Jul 31st 2008 8:13PM
sry double post. PS3 Fanboy's posting system is weirding out.
Strike Man @ Jul 31st 2008 8:50PM
Excuse me, but you have some ad hominem stuck between your teeth.
Vii @ Jul 31st 2008 10:45PM
Say what you will Strike Man, but the fact remains that if Gabe Newell can make groundless, unsubstantiated claims about the PS3 then why can't I make groundless, demeaning statements about his weight?
Besides, have you seen the man's picture? Its like looking at a mash-up of Bill Gates and Jabba the Hutt!
Jerses @ Jul 31st 2008 7:48PM
devs and a big bag of money dont mix... ask ffxiii. All the hype from square about the ps3 and that bullsht about no other console can make it possible... They make me belive that multiplataform games will come identical if m$ keep supporting them with money... thats not a bad thing but we will have to live with that.
MexicanTerrorist @ Jul 31st 2008 8:09PM
I call BS on all of square's talk about the ps3 power.
They should have been talking about money power, because evidently that is more powerful.
Despite the fact that PS3 exclusive games look like godsends from heaven compared to 360 games.
Damn it, Microsoft has a reign around Sony's neck. They keep trying to run towards greatness and innovation and Microsoft keeps pulling them back.
Selfish bastards.
Vii @ Jul 31st 2008 8:21PM
Aw come on guys. Look I know were fanboys, but exclusivity is equivalent to artists choosing a canvas or a medium. Some like oils on canvas. Others like clay and chisels. The point is that if there is a game that is awesome then play it and worry about the system later. Exclusivity though will soon be gone due largely to the amount of money that devs are making. Devs don't make as much on exclusive titles and if you want the devs you like to keep making games then multiplatform is really the way to go.
I don't think that we, as PS3 gamers should be pissed at Square-Enix for going 360 on us. They are still making PS3 games and now their games will get better as they coders get more experience on both systems. However, MexicanTerrorist is right about MS with regards to their financial backing as compared to Sony. However, another more important factor in this equation is MS's reputation. In other words, devs know they can make money on the 360. If you want devs like Cliffy B, or Bungie to make their way to the PS3 it will be necessary to show that the extra time they spend in game development will be worth it for not just ports, but original content as well.
suengdynasty @ Jul 31st 2008 8:31PM
All this talk about M$ and Sony having nearly identical graphics talks has posed a question from me, and I hope someone can answer it:
At this point, is there truly any technical limitation that the 360 has that the PS3 can do to blow it out of the water? I mean I keep hearing about 7 cell processor and Bluray disc, but there has been no defining "anything I can do, you can't do"? Because up until this point, I was always under the impression that the PS3 is basically a 2 gen console (it's made to compete with a possible PS4 hence the 10 year plan). But games like SC4, Burnout, and Hydrophobia make me wonder whether developers are A) Being LAZY! B) haven't truly discovered all the power that belies the 7 cells. Basically my question is simply, if you were to theoretically quantify the PS3's graphical capability (at peak) to the 360's (at peak as well). How many times is the PS3 theoretically better?
P.S. I am not starting any flame wars or anything I'd just like some enlightment about the situation as I didn't pay too much attention in Structured Architecture class.
Kraden @ Jul 31st 2008 11:52PM
I agree with you at this point i have been thinking if 360 and ps3 have the same power on graphics is not that kinda of lame that ps3 is expensive had more advanced the stuff and makes the same results that a 360? i would rather want ps3 only games that "multiplataform" beacuse if devs could push ps3 to its limits like back then with ps2 i think that would be awesome.
Arnon @ Aug 1st 2008 1:33AM
PS3: 100 billion shader ops per second (In controlled environment)
360: 46 billion shader ops per second (2 of these shader ops perform each second, resulting in 96 billion shader ops).
Both consoles seem to be performing on the same level. So honestly.. I cant tell the difference most of the time when playing a game on the 360 or a game on the PS3.
kalilaoboi @ Jul 31st 2008 8:40PM
this makes total sense considering the fact that the PS3 is the only console running on next gen format....how u gonna develop a next gen game backwards with the 360 which still uses dvd format and then port it over to blu-ray format. plus, there both running on diffrent processor's which ps3 has the cell broadband thats made exclusively for the ps3 and it's much powerful. To me tho...if developers start with the ps3 then port it over to xbox it would make big diffrence. oh yeah, 360 is lame.. it's almost a next gen console.
Arnon @ Aug 1st 2008 1:34AM
Blu-Ray has nothing to do with the graphical output of the console.. though, it does provide more data storage.
iamkid @ Jul 31st 2008 8:59PM
good to see some people are actually try this, as opposed to some certain lazy devs at valve. hopefully the trend will pick up
monkeywithnoeyes @ Jul 31st 2008 9:07PM
games dont need to start on the ps3 and then be ported to the 360 in order to look better on the 360 though..as 360 games already look better. The problem is when porting them over to the ps3 from the 360 being the lead platform. So having the ps3 the lead platform would simply benefit the ps3 alone.. it would have no standing on the 360.
Also, if dead space has the ps3 as its lead platform how come when ever they demonstrate it its always the 360 build? That seems a strange move.
I think it would basically be cheaper for developers to start on the ps3 and then port to the 360.. it has nothing to do with console power. It would just stop development delays in the ps3 versions.
iamkid @ Jul 31st 2008 9:13PM
interesting..glad to see that some devs arent lazy, as opposed to some certain devs at valve *COUGH* GABE *COUGH*. hopefully the trend will actually pick up.
HernanG @ Jul 31st 2008 11:41PM
I'm sorry to disagree with most of the people here but I see Scott Steinberg's point here. Most multiplat titles are developed on the 360 and then ported to the PS3. I heard that the 360's structure is similar to a PC, so they just make multiplats that are on PC the same with medim-high graphics and voalá. The problem is that the PS3 struggles here in great part thanks to lazy and rushed development, sometimes making a game to be delayed or cancelled.
If they use the PS3 as the native development plataform it will be very easy to port it to the 360, and they will spend less cash. It manly benefits the PS3, but is better to truly use the power of the PS3 and make 360 games look the same or slightly inferior to change a bit.
The only think that I see will impede this is the Micro$oft factor. They will not like the idea of they're multiplat games now looking better on PS3 and will defenetly use a very $pecial marketing and will $upport developers that to their games in the 360 as the main dev.
held225 @ Aug 1st 2008 1:27AM
I agree, and lol i like the way you hinted on Micro$ofts $pecial Marketing and $upport . Its time to make games look next gen as well, and as of now the PS3 is the only system that can do that. Like it or not but hopefully PS3 will be the dev. console of choice.
nnarum23 @ Aug 1st 2008 8:41AM
Is it really necessary to put a $ for every s involving Microsoft? Grow up. I can do it too, $ony...
don_sf @ Aug 1st 2008 7:36AM
no doutb the ps3 has the better graphics. the 1st party ps3 titles without any doubt look better than 360, and will look much much better in the future.
what this shows is potentially all 3rd party games can have graphics like these.
the developers had xbox 360 for so many years now, it was easy to program for right at the beginning. yet the difficult to program ps3 is showing the right signs of differentiation.
i want to share a little story with you. all of my friends who had brought a launch 360 got rrod by now, exept for one. and i kept on telling him your on borrowed time mate, and YES after all these years he finally got it last week.
don_sf @ Aug 1st 2008 7:43AM
well maybe you should consider the statement 'rome wasnt built in a day'.
trial and error is the biggest part of development. you do 1 thing, and then the next time you do it, u learned from the experience and can do it better and faster.
gran turismo 4 is regarded has being one the best looking ps2 games. but in ps2's early life this game would be impossible. now this ps3 we have today is constantly being described as a bottomless pit. in 2-4 years time, they dont know exactly how good the graphics are going to get, its that good. whereas xbox 360 is litteraly pushing its limits even today, and they know exactly what its capable of.
Nate @ Aug 1st 2008 9:20AM
We're still just a year and a half into the PS3's lifecycle, devs are still figuring out the hardware, just like they had to do for the PS2. Take a look at the difference between Tekken Tag (2000) and Tekken 5 (2005)
http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/74432_tekken-tag-tournament-3.jpg
http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Games%20Zone/Images/tekken5_big1.jpg
And the PS2 isn't nearly as complex as the PS3. Most games are barely using the SPEs at all, and that's where most of the power of the PS3 comes from. It's 6 SPE processors can produce about 25 gigaflops each, for a total of 150, plus the PPE which adds another 25 for 175, plus the OS runs on a 7th SPE, so it's effectively 200 gigaflops. THis is versus the 360's 115 gigaflops. (all data from wikipedia)
This is why we say the PS3 is so badass. It's also why it's so hard to program for. Splitting a program up into 7 parts, plus the unique way you have to program the parts running on the SPEs (they don't act like traditional CPU+RAM) means that it's not just plug and play with the code that ran on your PC.
Christopher @ Aug 1st 2008 11:27PM
The problem is that the PS3 platform is more expensive and a pain in the ass to develop for compared to the 360. The tools for developing on the 360 are powerful and familiar like the PC. If that's the case, then why pay more for developing on the PS3 for slightly better looking games? Developing on the PS3 is very different because of the cell processor.
Sounds like a dubious claim to me.
lonewulf7 @ Aug 2nd 2008 5:13PM
CliffyB stated b4 that hes pushing the xbox 360 to the limit with gears 2 but if you really look at it its like an expansion of gears 1. i thought mgs4 looked better but thats my opinion.
Yuel @ Sep 17th 2008 8:47AM
About graphics probably both consoles can do the same things, the difference is that the PS3 has more processors, so, you can do more operations per second, like various characters doing different things in real time; it is obvious that you can do more things with more processors. The main problem for devs is that you must do parallel programming with more cores, so it's harder; i think this is the main issue to make better PS3 games, I hope devs can learn to manipulate the cell.
ROBERTO HERNANDEZ PR @ Oct 1st 2008 6:05AM
thats great that all consoles will benefit from ps3 version now 360 will get to real POTENCIAL and i'll enjoy them all. FOR those that are still in the FLAMEWAR analize the true facts before u write foolish coment about HARWARE.last thing since 2005 pc,360 fanS TALKING about PS3 that is this or that is that NOW in 2008 recognising that is a PAIN to PROG for it the little is been good so far CPU VS GPU TO those that dont know a GPU Thats doing 2flops is f_______ awesome ps3 both GPU or CPU is better even the 360 having 3MULTI GPCORES IM NO A FAN LIKE I SAY i own them all