Support NeoGAF

[TheGamingGuru]

From GI

So much for the bogus xbox 1.5 :lol And guess what..x360 is coming out well before ps3. I guess x360's gpu is a beastly device.

 

[mrklaw]

I disagree.

EA's method of doing business is to get a game out the door on time for just about every single platform out there. Most of their next-gen engines are going to be built on Xbox360 first, just for the fact that its probably going to be released a year before the PS3. I don't think EA is going to turn around and build all new PS3-specific engines for all of its games. This isn't how EA creates a game. They build one engine and then port it to everything else. They will then use that same engine for the next 4-5 years with a few annual tweaks. Unless you have information to the contrary, I don't see EA changing this policy next generation.

games now, I agree - X360 is likely to be the main development platform. But I personally wouldn't think that would last very long. As soon as feasible most developers would move to the PS3 as the base platform. Make sure you concentrate on where the money is first.

 

[DCharlie]

"games now, I agree - X360 is likely to be the main development platform. But I personally wouldn't think that would last very long. As soon as feasible most developers would move to the PS3 as the base platform. Make sure you concentrate on where the money is first."

why though? It surely makes more sense to port upwards from X360 to the PS3 than the other way round given that the PS3 is more powerful surely?

And at the moment, there is no money on either platform - no machines have been sold yet, and whilst PS3 is _expected_ to do better NOTHING is decided (PSP was expected to trounce the DS, and as we can see, that hasn't happened (yet) although obviously sony dominate the console market, where as they had no presence in the handheld market) . If truth be told, if devs want money, then they'll all continue with supporting both machines which is exactly what i expect to happen with most devs this coming gen.

 

[sonycowboy]

I disagree.

EA's method of doing business is to get a game out the door on time for just about every single platform out there. Most of their next-gen engines are going to be built on Xbox360 first, just for the fact that its probably going to be released a year before the PS3. I don't think EA is going to turn around and build all new PS3-specific engines for all of its games. This isn't how EA creates a game. They build one engine and then port it to everything else. They will then use that same engine for the next 4-5 years with a few annual tweaks. Unless you have information to the contrary, I don't see EA changing this policy next generation.

It's incredibly hard to make that argument based off of just this generation because not only was Sony not the first platform out, but even if you discount the Dreamcast not being supported, the PS2 was also the most successful platform.

So, you could easily say that EA makes games for the most successful platform first and ports from there. In fact, if you look back, EA did support the Saturn, which came out first, but clearly made the PSOne their base platform once it was obvious that it would be the leader. The generation before that, the SNES was clearly the leader and yet they sided with the Genesis, presumably based on the business side as to which platform would best fit thier focus.

To make blanket statements such as "The base platform will be the Xbox360, because it's out first" or "the base platform will be the lowest common denominator" is overly simplistic. Yes, EA wants to be mutiplatform, without a doubt, but they may also recognize the need to be "THE" developer on the the most successful platform, whichever that one will be this generation.

We honestly don't know what their "base" platform is going to be or how they make their determination about what features will be included based on performance, so to attempt speak with authority is foolhardy, IMO. Maybe we have some EA developers here who can set us straight.

 

[sonycowboy]

why though? It surely makes more sense to port upwards from X360 to the PS3 than the other way round given that the PS3 is more powerful surely?

And at the moment, there is no money on either platform - no machines have been sold yet, and whilst PS3 is _expected_ to do better NOTHING is decided (PSP was expected to trounce the DS, and as we can see, that hasn't happened (yet) although obviously sony dominate the console market, where as they had no presence in the handheld market) . If truth be told, if devs want money, then they'll all continue with supporting both machines which is exactly what i expect to happen with most devs this coming gen.

That's not how Ubisoft felt this generation. Or how PC developers felt regarding PC/Xbox development.

Unless systems are generational apart in terms of capability, the porting process could just as easily be done in one direction as another. Developers haven't needed to cut out entire parts of gameplay unless they went to the GBA this generation.


IMO, If I was making the business decisions, I'd tell my people to do the best work on the most successful system, because I'm in competition. If my stuff isn't up to snuff with the stuff on that platform, I'm gonna get waxed and my portfolio of games is going to look much weaker in comparison. I do recognize the need for multiplatform development, especially in these days of escalating development costs, but many here should recognize that many of these decisions are based off of financial concerns and not just technological ones. And different developers choose different things. (Ubi vs EA, Valve vs Activision, etc).

There is no simple and all encompassing answer here.

 

[gofreak]

why though? It surely makes more sense to port upwards from X360 to the PS3 than the other way round given that the PS3 is more powerful surely?

Not necessarily, it's not just about power..

For one, Carmack made an interesting case for starting with PS3 and moving from there. Although he qualified that it was unfortunate that this might be the best approach, because it's also more difficult to harness Cell fully. He's not sure what route he'll take right now though.

I suppose ultimately it may well come down to a combination of factors..I think it also depends on your priorities.

 

[mrklaw]

That's not how Ubisoft felt this generation. Or how PC developers felt regarding PC/Xbox development.

Unless systems are generational apart in terms of capability, the porting process could just as easily be done in one direction as another. Developers haven't needed to cut out entire parts of gameplay unless they went to the GBA this generation.


IMO, If I was making the business decisions, I'd tell my people to do the best work on the most successful system, because I'm in competition. If my stuff isn't up to snuff with the stuff on that platform, I'm gonna get waxed and my portfolio of games is going to look much weaker in comparison. I do recognize the need for multiplatform development, especially in these days of escalating development costs, but many here should recognize that many of these decisions are based off of financial concerns and not just technological ones. And different developers choose different things. (Ubi vs EA, Valve vs Activision, etc).

There is no simple and all encompassing answer here.

What he said

Its just as easy to port in either direction, true. But the only way to get the benefits of any increased power is to start on the most powerful first.

As for 'no money' - come on DCharlie. You know most publishers will be planning the next 2 years based on projections. And if any of them have any projections that don't put PS3 as the clear market leader, then I'm glad I'm not working for them..

 

[Shogmaster]

That's not how Ubisoft felt this generation. Or how PC developers felt regarding PC/Xbox development.

That's because XBox had a true DX compliant GPU and PS2 did not. Porting FXs from PC to XBox was simple as managing DX calls, where as porting to PS2 required alot of recoding of FXs.

Unless systems are generational apart in terms of capability, the porting process could just as easily be done in one direction as another. Developers haven't needed to cut out entire parts of gameplay unless they went to the GBA this generation.

It' always easier to port up and to port down. It's always easier to add than to subtract. Sculpting out of clay is infinitely easier than sculpting out of marble.

IMO, If I was making the business decisions, I'd tell my people to do the best work on the most successful system, because I'm in competition. If my stuff isn't up to snuff with the stuff on that platform, I'm gonna get waxed and my portfolio of games is going to look much weaker in comparison.

Care to explain GTA series' success?

I do recognize the need for multiplatform development, especially in these days of escalating development costs, but many here should recognize that many of these decisions are based off of financial concerns and not just technological ones. And different developers choose different things. (Ubi vs EA, Valve vs Activision, etc).

There is no simple and all encompassing answer here.

At least we agree on something.

 

[DCharlie]

"As for 'no money' - come on DCharlie. You know most publishers will be planning the next 2 years based on projections. And if any of them have any projections that don't put PS3 as the clear market leader, then I'm glad I'm not working for them.."

well, it's a fact that despite what has happened this gen, the current installed userbase of X360 and PS3 are both zero.

There is some discussion over at Tokyopia about why it might make most sense for X360 to be the base machine rather than switch.

 

[mrklaw]

sure, but assumptions have to be made somewhere, and a lot will be based on where the two sides are now.


As for X360 coding - potentially with the new CPU and unified shaders, its more difficult to port from the PC and tap the performance of X360. I'd almost say that X360 is more similar to PS3 than to PCs.