Rage Runs Faster on 360 than PS3, Carmack Confirms

SHEF · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:27

Edge magazine has found that the Xbox 360 version of id Software's shooter Rage matches the PC target of 60 frames-per-second, while the PlayStation 3 currently only manages to run the game at 20-30 FPS, a discrepancy that id's John Carmack does not deny.

"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," said Carmack in the latest issue of Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower--no two ways about that."

Added the 'Mack: "The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

Weren't id Tech 4 games (Doom 3, Quake 4) all locked to 60fps?

I'm guessing that is the only reason he's able to say the 360 matches the PC.

Still with a year to go till release I'm sure they'll be able to improve on those numbers for the PS3; but can they get the 60fps they want?

simo182 · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:32

He later confirmed that he expects the PS3 version to match the other two given time.

Kreeeee · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:34

Isn't he a 360 fangirl anyway, or was that Gabe?

Wyrdo · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:37

Kreeeee said:
Isn't he a 360 fangirl anyway, or was that Gabe?

That was Gabe.

No doubt they'll be able to get the same performance out of the PS3 eventually.

SHEF · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:37

He is, however, confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: “Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.”

Edge-Online have added that to the article.

Memphis · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:44

I see bad things in this thread's future.

V4NT0M · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:46

Indeed I always curse the PS3's rasteriser.

mmj_uk · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:52

It's just another case of a clueless PC developer scratching their head at PS3's architecture.

We've seen articles like these several times before and usually there's a follow up article along the lines of "we've got the hang of it now it's running great!".

Streeteh · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:54

mmj_uk said:
It's just another case of a clueless PC developer scratching their head at PS3's architecture.

Indeed, there's evidence in most of our games collections that each console is as capable as the other.

Dup · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:55

So its more of a case that they haven't coded it with the PS3 fully in mind. That said, 30-40fps difference is quite a lot tbh.

Robert1986 · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:55

This is nothing new. Most multi-plat games run/look better on the 360 due to developers having an easier time working with the 360.

Whats the point of this article though? The game doesn't even have a release date.

PiKe · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:55

Why should the PS3 be so hard to code for though?

Robert1986 · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:58

PiKe said:
Why should the PS3 be so hard to code for though?

The 360 is pretty much the same as the pc in terms of developing for it.

Wyrdo · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:59

mmj_uk said:
It's just another case of a clueless PC developer scratching their head at PS3's architecture.

Heh, I love the fact you called John Carmack and id software a 'clueless PC developer'

lolsontoast

LiE · 31 Jul 2009 at 12:59

PiKe said:
Why should the PS3 be so hard to code for though?

Because the SDK is garbage?

Streeteh · 31 Jul 2009 at 13:00

Wyrdo said:
Heh, I love the fact you called John Carmack and id software a 'clueless PC developer'

lolsontoast

To be fair, when's the last time they actually released a really good game? To me they're just another developer living off of their glory days. The last game they've developed that's even worthy of note is Doom 3, and that was back in 2004!

mmj_uk · 31 Jul 2009 at 13:03

Wyrdo said:
Heh, I love the fact you called John Carmack and id software a 'clueless PC developer'

lolsontoast

Clueless about PS3 and is a PC developer for clarification.

Gabe Newell (another "top" PC developer) was spouting the same crap a year or so back and he's now pretty much admitted he won't touch PS3 until he's recruited some talented PS3 programmers.

Robert1986 · 31 Jul 2009 at 13:04

Even Doom 3 was nothing special. It didn't do anything new for the FPS genre. It was just another FPS game.

V4NT0M · 31 Jul 2009 at 13:08

I don't see hoe being clueless about PS3 is a bad point for developers, surely the problem lies with the PS3's architecture and SDK?

Streeteh · 31 Jul 2009 at 13:09

Robert1986 said:
Even Doom 3 was nothing special. It didn't do anything new for the FPS genre. It was just another FPS game.

Hmm, dunno, in terms of gameplay yeah it was nothing special, but when was the last time a shooter did anything new with the gameplay? It was however the first FPS i know of to have full dynamic lighting and proper physics based puzzles, two things that are now staple features of shooters. The game itself was nothing special, but technologically it was ground breaking.

Skyfall said:
I don't see hoe being clueless about PS3 is a bad point for developers, surely the problem lies with the PS3's architecture and SDK?

It isn't a bad thing for anyone but themselves (missing out on profits, PS3 sales will be worth more than PC i'd wager) and PS3 only owners. What bugs me is when developers state it as fact that one or the other just isn't as good purely because they can't get their heads around it, for whatever reason that might be (time, effort, money, or just crap developers). All it does is fuels pointless debates when there's physical proof that both consoles are as powerful as each other.