Why are PS3 games released later than on the 360

heman · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:19

There must be a reason why multi-format games are released later on the PS3.

For example:
Rainbow 6: Vegas
Dirt
Graw 2
The Darkness

Could it be due to lack of developer experience on the PS3? Or do Sony have some hidden agenda?

Shamikebab · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:21

Many developers have said the PS3 is a lot harder to develop for, a lot have been saying its taking longer to optimize the ps3 version due to the architecture being so fundimentally different from pc and 360.

heman · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:24

True, but surely its in the developers interest to get the games out on all platforms at the same time. If it is more diffucult to program for the PS3 then they could allocate their resources more appropriately to reach a set deadline for all formats.

sanofi · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:25

heman said:
True, but surely its in the developers interest to get the games out on all platforms at the same time. If it is more diffucult to program for the PS3 then they could allocate their resources more appropriately to reach a set deadline for all formats.

They realise that although that would be the logical thing to do, that the number of PS3 owners is small relative to PC and 360 owners that they need to cater for the majority of the market first, IF a delay is necessary.

ic1male · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:25

The PS3 is akin to a "prototype" or "test bed" for the real Cell powerhouse (PS4 when that arrives). Devs are still getting to grips with Cell technology so when the PS4 comes out with better graphics but the same processor (albeit ramped up to 6GHz) they should get off to a flying start.

That's my theory.

tastyweat · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:26

Shamikebab said:
Many developers have said the PS3 is a lot harder to develop for, a lot have been saying its taking longer to optimize the ps3 version due to the architecture being so fundimentally different from pc and 360.

Yeah... the PS3 is completely different to code for according to the developers. Most of those ports have been pretty bad apart from the darkness.

The only one on that list that *may* be another reason is Dirt - codemasters are claiming that the PS3 version is actually their main release and that the engine was created specifically for the PS3. Fingers crossed they'll hold true to their word and the PS3 version of Dirt will be what the Xbox 360 version should have been without the crummy frame rates.

mcwildcard · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:26

heman said:
True, but surely its in the developers interest to get the games out on all platforms at the same time. If it is more diffucult to program for the PS3 then they could allocate their resources more appropriately to reach a set deadline for all formats.

In time they probably will, but it's all a bit new currently, so there's probably a fair bit of guesswork going on with regards to timeframes.

Shamikebab · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:26

heman said:
True, but surely its in the developers interest to get the games out on all platforms at the same time. If it is more diffucult to program for the PS3 then they could allocate their resources more appropriately to reach a set deadline for all formats.

well not really, 360 currently has the highest user base so thats their primary audience. If this changes then developers attitudes will likely change. Some developers may not have the resources available to allocate more to the ps3 port. I dont think the PS3 port being delayed will affect total sales, what will effect it is if its a shoddy port, which unfortunately the vast majority seem to be at the moment

Kainz · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:34

heman said:
Could it be due to lack of developer experience on the PS3? Or do Sony have some hidden agenda?

That is it in a nutshell. The 360 had a good few months after December 2005 where we had sod all titles. Then the second wave of titles arrived with Full Auto, and other titles.

tomanders91 · 13 Aug 2007 at 13:55

there lazy, they dont like the ps3 because they bum the xbox (im not a fanboy, i love the 360 in fact i regret getting rid of mine), the only games to look forward to on the PS3 are exlusives, mgs4, killzone etc.

Manlove is my forte · 13 Aug 2007 at 14:10

it comes down to several things

1) Complexity of code/architecture. Throwing more resources at it (people) will ramp up the costs pdq. So I would hazard a guess that the developers have the optimum number of staff to create the game. It just takes longer.

2) Market audience. Currently the PS3 does not have enough units out there for market saturation. As such unless the developers know they have a AAA game (and not a filler) they will be prepared to wait until there is deemed enough consoles available to sell the game at full price. If they released it now, they will probably get the same sales over time. However they will have less sales when the game is "Brand New" and therefore able to be sold at a premium.

Nanoman · 13 Aug 2007 at 14:52

Its kinda like the transition from vhs to dvd all over again. Devs are used to vhs(360

), simply because it was out first, and is the only thing avalible to develop for, all efforts are therefore on vhs(360)! Then suddenly! A new (and improved

) format comes along, dvd(ps3). Whilst everyone is still catering for vhs(360), a slow realisation of improved quality is noticed lol, resulting in what is to be the start of something huge! But like most things that are large in size and intensity, a realitivily slow process of change is a result, but, in due course, sometime in the near future, the dvd developes a standard, resulting in every developer and home-owner owning a dvd player.

Dutch Guy · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:11

They want to finish the games as fast as possible so they can start to make money, if the PS3 version takles longer to finish it gets released later on.

Only way to not have this is to make a deal with the developers to release it on all consoles at the same time like GTA IV

Jono · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:15

Nanoman said:
Its kinda like the transition from vhs to dvd all over again. Devs are used to vhs(360), simply because it was out first, and is the only thing avalible to develop for, all efforts are therefore on vhs(360)! Then suddenly! A new (and improved ) format comes along, dvd(ps3). Whilst everyone is still catering for vhs(360), a slow realisation of improved quality is noticed lol, resulting in what is to be the start of something huge! But like most things that are large in size and intensity, a realitivily slow process of change is a result, but, in due course, sometime in the near future, the dvd developes a standard, resulting in every developer and home-owner owning a dvd player.

No it's not.

Manlove is my forte · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:15

Nanoman said:
...

Umm Your analogy is flawed in... well... every single way.

It would be closer to VHS (360) and BetaMax (PS3) <-- Based on current state of play. PS3 (unlike Betamax) should turn out to be a success

Your analogy could however be used in the transition from PS2 (VHS) to PS3(DVD). That would be an accurate use of your analogy.

noob · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:16

Nanoman said:
Its kinda like the transition from vhs to dvd all over again. Devs are used to vhs(360), simply because it was out first, and is the only thing avalible to develop for, all efforts are therefore on vhs(360)! Then suddenly! A new (and improved ) format comes along, dvd(ps3). Whilst everyone is still catering for vhs(360), a slow realisation of improved quality is noticed lol, resulting in what is to be the start of something huge! But like most things that are large in size and intensity, a realitivily slow process of change is a result, but, in due course, sometime in the near future, the dvd developes a standard, resulting in every developer and home-owner owning a dvd player.

Poor analogy, the difference between VHS and DVD was huge. There isn't much difference between the XBOX 360 and PS3. Developers are going to produce games for the console they will make the most money on. Why do you think developers are rushing out Wii games? It's because they are flying off the shelves.

"andy" · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:18

its not "hard" too code for

its just no one is very experienced in it yet so they're still learning as they go along

if youve spent ten years coding one way and then get told do do it a complete new way its going to take a bit longer isnt it

good example is

i could do something in photoshop and it could take for example 30 minutes to finish

or i could use a different image editing package which ive rarely used and is a fair bit different

id have to re learn to do the tasks in this package , i wouldnt know shortcuts or have any tips etc , to get the same results its going to take me a bit longer

i could have course of just set myself a time limit and finished after 30 minutes , i wouldnt of got the same results though

Margaret · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:21

andy said:
its just no one is experienced in it so they're learning as they go along

Doubt it, it's not like just one developer has said about it being hard to code for or whatever, I mean Valve and Ubisoft said it at least.

noob · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:25

Jihad said:
Doubt it, it's not like just one developer has said about it being hard to code for or whatever, I mean Valve and Ubisoft said it at least.

Agreed, John Carmack has even said it is tricky to develop for and the guy is a genius.

"andy" · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:27

doubt it ?

so you think they instantly trained to code in the different way then?

these coder guys have spent years at uni and on the job learning thing the one way , when you tell them "hey weve got this complete new way of doing things" theyre going to instantly pick it up , its naturally going to be slower for them to do.

thats why its tricky

there nothing making it harder to learn its just that no one HAS learnt yet

if you gave 2 complete newbies whod never coded in there life a task on both platforms theyd get it done about the same

john carmacks spent about 20 years coding the other way , he can probably do it in his sleep ,course its going to be bloody tricky for him to learn a complete new way