PS3 Version of MOH: Airborne Delayed Three Months [Archive]

fitbabits

07-05-2007, 08:35 PM

GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6173677.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6173677) is reporting that the PS3 version of Medal of Honor: Airborne will not be release on August 28th along with the Xbox 360 and PC versions. Instead, PS3 owners eager to get their hands on EA's WWII-centric shooter will have to wait till some time in November:

In April, a trailer for Medal of Honor: Airborne debuted on online retailer GameStop's Web site. Though brief, the preview contained some big news: The latest installment in Electronic Arts' long-running series would arrive in stores on August 28, beating the fourth-quarter crush of releases.

Today, though, EA revealed that the trailer's release date only applied to the Xbox 360 and PC versions of the game. Tucked inconspicuously away at the bottom of the announcement that Lost composer Michael Giacchino would score the forthcoming World War II shooter was official word that the game would arrive "in November for the PlayStation 3 computer entertainment system." No explanation was given for the delay.
Looks to me like Electronic Arts is now developing first for PC and Xbox 360, then porting their games over to the PS3. For further evidence of this, one only needs to look at the recent Madden NFL 08 "30 fps PS3" news.

DeathtollWRX

07-05-2007, 08:49 PM

I can't beleive the amount of bad PS3 news lately. I swear it really really sounds like *** is doing something... either that or EA is getting lazier then normal.

Grimmjow

07-05-2007, 08:52 PM

pure craziness I tell you PURE!

fitbabits

07-05-2007, 08:53 PM

I can't beleive the amount of bad PS3 news lately. I swear it really really sounds like *** is doing something... either that or EA is getting lazier then normal.
EA as in Elec Arts or EA as in EvAv?

Anyway, this mess is all Sony's doing - there's no point feeling any sympathy for them right now as they pretty much talked and walked themselves into this corner. Now they hope we (gamers and movie fans -or is it the other way?- around) bail them out by buying the PS3 in droves on the promise of more and better games to come.

doubtingthomas

07-05-2007, 08:53 PM

Allright, I own a 360 and have no interest in owning a PS3. Also, I'm not complaining about bias or anything, as its not my site and I don't believe this one specific site has any responsibility about being fair/balanced/whatever about consumer products, which is what videogames are.

With that being said, here's a story about a game (another WW2 shooter which may sell a billion copies for all I know but I certainly wouldn't describe it as highly anticipated, or a big deal) being delayed for 3 months for one of three platforms. It seems like a nonstory to me, but I guess its a story because you can infer that the PS3 is doomed/sucks because of the commentary at the bottom about a major publisher no longer caring about the PS3. Without stating everything I said in the first paragraph, isn't this news getting old? I know the PS3 sucks, but it really seems like the editors of this site almost have a vendetta against Sony. I don't mean to step on toes here either, I'm not trolling...........I guess I'm just saying............... Meh? Same Shit Different Day? Give it a rest for a while?

fitbabits

07-05-2007, 08:55 PM

Allright, I own a 360 and have no interest in owning a PS3. Also, I'm not complaining about bias or anything, as its not my site and I don't believe this one specific site has any responsibility about being fair/balanced/whatever about consumer products, which is what videogames are.

With that being said, here's a story about a game (another WW2 shooter which may sell a billion copies for all I know but I certainly wouldn't describe it as highly anticipate, or a big deal) being delayed for 3 months for one of three platforms. It seems like a nonstory to me, but I guess its a story because you can infer that the PS3 is doomed/sucks because of the commentary at the bottom about a major published no longer caring about the PS3. Without stating everything I said in the first paragraph, isn't this news getting old? I know the PS3 sucks, but it really seems like the editors of this site almost have a vendetta against Sony. I don't mean to step on toes here either, I'm not trolling...........I guess I'm just saying............... Meh? Same Shit Different Day? Give it a rest for a while?
Holy bananas! Are you off your head? I don't hear you accusing GameSpot of bias or having a vendetta against Sony!

Wasson_

07-05-2007, 08:56 PM

PFFTH, "Lost". Yeah everybody talks about Lost's music...

Micheal Giacchino is just great though.

Frontline remains one of my most liked games for it's music alone. I mean, I liked it enough for me to look up who did it and remember his name...:rolleyes:

Vanthar

07-05-2007, 09:00 PM

Yeah this is definitely hurting the PS3. Unless hardware sales majorly pick up with the price drop, Sony could be in a lot of trouble soon.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

07-05-2007, 09:01 PM

I wonder if MS paid a bit of cash for a short term exclusive.

Grimmjow

07-05-2007, 09:02 PM

I wonder if MS paid a bit of cash for a short term exclusive.

Money hats all day everyday

fitbabits

07-05-2007, 09:02 PM

I wonder if MS paid a bit of cash for a short term exclusive.
I don't think so. I think this is simply a case of EA focusing their resources on proven technology. They did the same with the PS2 versus Xbox and GameCube.

doubtingthomas

07-05-2007, 09:05 PM

Holy bananas! Are you off your head? I don't hear you accusing GameSpot of bias or having a vendetta against Sony!

Gamespot's article just says there is a delay for the PS3 version of the game. Nothing more or less. It doesn't speculate that the reason its delayed is that Electronic Arts has put all their resources towards developing for the PC and 360, as opposed to the PS3, like yours does. Here's another scenario. The 360 version of the game has been in development longer than the PS3 version, perhaps due to having 360 development kits longer than the PS3's. Here's another. Electronic Arts decided to push the release of this FPS of theirs out ahead of a certain FPS on the 360 being released, i.e. Halo 3. Another scenario is the PS3 is slightly harder to develop and they decided they could use a couple more months of polish.

The scenario you chose is the one that says the PS3 is shitty and Electronic Arts doesn't want to support them anymore, which seems the easy way on this site these days.

Kamalot

07-05-2007, 09:06 PM

I don't think so. I think this is simply a case of EA focusing their resources on proven technology. They did the same with the PS2 versus Xbox and GameCube.
PS3 owners are the new GameCube owners. I remember the developers taking the same stance on the Saturn.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

07-05-2007, 09:07 PM

I don't think so. I think this is simply a case of EA focusing their resources on proven technology. They did the same with the PS2 versus Xbox and GameCube.
The thing is that paying smaller amounts of cash for many games to have a short window of lead on the 360 might have more effect than spending 50 million on a couple of exclusive episodes.

Just thinking that if MS went down the road of offering some development cash or royalty discounts for a 3 month window they might get a fair bit of bang or the buck. After all, the marketing money is spent on the first push. How much extra marketing cash will they (the game publisher) add for another push for another platform 3 months later?

fitbabits

07-05-2007, 09:07 PM

Gamespot's article just says there is a delay for the PS3 version of the game. Nothing more or less. It doesn't speculate that the reason its delayed is that Electronic Arts has put all their resources towards developing for the PC and 360, as opposed to the PS3, like yours does. Here's another scenario. The 360 version of the game has been in development longer than the PS3 version, perhaps due to having 360 development kits longer than the PS3's. Here's another. Electronic Arts decided to push the release of this FPS of theirs out ahead of a certain FPS on the 360 being released, i.e. Halo 3. Another scenario is the PS3 is slightly harder to develop and they decided they could use a couple more months of polish.

The scenario you chose is the one that says the PS3 is shitty and Electronic Arts doesn't want to support them anymore, which seems the easy way on this site these days.
You're looking at my post singularly. Try looking at the bigger picture and you'll perhaps see why I've drawn the conclusion above. Hell, you even mentioned it in your initial rebuke. :confused:

Kamalot

07-05-2007, 09:07 PM

The scenario you chose is the one that says the PS3 is shitty and Electronic Arts doesn't want to support them anymore, which seems the easy way on this site these days.
No, it speaks nothing of the quality of the PS3, but rather the size of their install base.

fitbabits

07-05-2007, 09:08 PM

The thing is that paying smaller amounts of cash for many games to have a short window of lead on the 360 might have more effect than spending 50 million on a couple of exclusive episodes.

Just thinking that if MS went down the road of offering some development cash or royalty discounts for a 3 month window they might get a fair bit of bang or the buck. After all, the marketing money is spent on the first push. How much extra marketing cash will they add for another push for another platform 3 months later?
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft is working on some deals (and has done in the past), but, again, this seems more like common sense on EA's part. It made sense to develop first for the proven leader last generation, just like it's making sense now.

Kamalot

07-05-2007, 09:10 PM

The thing is that paying smaller amounts of cash for many games to have a short window of lead on the 360 might have more effect than spending 50 million on a couple of exclusive episodes.

Just thinking that if MS went down the road of offering some development cash or royalty discounts for a 3 month window they might get a fair bit of bang or the buck. After all, the marketing money is spent on the first push. How much extra marketing cash will they (the game publisher) add for another push for another platform 3 months later?
Ho ho! That's sneaky!
Plus, some developers will make the first game and outsource the port to another shop. That's a GREAT way to save money. Sounds like GameCube country.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

07-05-2007, 09:15 PM

No, it speaks nothing of the quality of the PS3, but rather the size of their install base.
It also speaks to a repeating pattern within a large 3rd party developer/publisher. As such, it is certainly worthy of discussion.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

07-05-2007, 09:20 PM

Ho ho! That's sneaky!
Yeah, I eat a lot of cheese to be that sneaky. A lot.

Zanzibar

07-05-2007, 09:43 PM

Crenor

07-05-2007, 09:57 PM

Looks to me like Electronic Arts is now developing first for PC and Xbox 360, then porting their games over to the PS3. For further evidence of this, one only needs to look at the recent Madden NFL 08 "30 fps PS3" news.

This is ultra old almost a newb statement. Everyone is making their games on PC 1st , because that is what every game is made with. Then going to XBox360 - since it is easy, then porting to PS3 because they want the sales and its quick. This does mean features are removed due to the lack of time to optimize for the way the PS3 works vs everything else. All the majors are doing it this way. Most game engines are this way (Unreal, Renderware, and so on)

The only reason you don't see more PC versions is the hassle of 1million PC setups, too much to test for, too much hassle, not enough return.

doubtingthomas

07-05-2007, 10:29 PM

You're looking at my post singularly. Try looking at the bigger picture and you'll perhaps see why I've drawn the conclusion above. Hell, you even mentioned it in your initial rebuke. :confused:

All I'm saying is there is a lot of negative news posts about the PS3 lately on this site. And you could say that is just because all the news about the PS3 is negative. Fair enough. But a simple story about one particular game that is coming out 3 months later for the PS3 than the 360 isn't just a simple story but rather construed as evidence that Electronic Arts isn't working as hard at developing games for the PS3 as they are for the 360. Which could be a bit of a stretch. And instead of it being a simple almost non story its an anti-PS3 story.

Adam Blue

07-05-2007, 10:43 PM

There has been negative news because because Sony has been doing negative-worthy shit. And we give them hell. Microsoft's 360 failure rates have pissed us off, so we've been giving them crap.

There's no side being taken here. Something negative happens, we point it out. Stop crying.

oldjadedgamer

07-05-2007, 10:49 PM

All I'm saying is there is a lot of negative news posts about the PS3 lately on this site. And you could say that is just because all the news about the PS3 is negative. Fair enough. But a simple story about one particular game that is coming out 3 months later for the PS3 than the 360 isn't just a simple story but rather construed as evidence that Electronic Arts isn't working as hard at developing games for the PS3 as they are for the 360. Which could be a bit of a stretch. And instead of it being a simple almost non story its an anti-PS3 story.

But if they were working as hard on the PS3, why would there be a delay? It only hurts EA to release the game later then the 360 since they will lose out on co-marketing dollars.

H1PO

07-05-2007, 11:09 PM

Now they hope we (gamers and movie fans -or is it the other way?- around) bail them out by buying the PS3 in droves on the promise of more and better games to come.Why should we help them? Why should we buy an over priced console that's best feature is DVD upscaling. No. frankly, I'm pissed at anyone who wants to help a company who hasn't delivered yet. Untill sony delivers on what we want, we shouldn't help them and they shouldn't assume we'll help them.

Maybe some more competent company like Sega can make a console.

LostToys

07-05-2007, 11:13 PM

But if they were working as hard on the PS3, why would there be a delay? It only hurts EA to release the game later then the 360 since they will lose out on co-marketing dollars.

Marketing is still cheap. If you are already paying for print ads, you will likely be paying for the same space several months after the game is released. All you have to do is add a new logo to the add, slap on "Now on PLAYSTATION 3" "sicker" and get it into the hands of your advertising groups before material closing. This costs you nothing.

It only becomes an issue if the game is released 6 months later, as you are likely not pimping the game anymore. At this point you are reaching into your pockets and paying for extra advertising.

Chaos Machine

07-05-2007, 11:15 PM

This is ultra old almost a newb statement. Everyone is making their games on PC 1st , because that is what every game is made with. Then going to XBox360 - since it is easy, then porting to PS3 because they want the sales and its quick. This does mean features are removed due to the lack of time to optimize for the way the PS3 works vs everything else. All the majors are doing it this way. Most game engines are this way (Unreal, Renderware, and so on)

The only reason you don't see more PC versions is the hassle of 1million PC setups, too much to test for, too much hassle, not enough return.

first, porting to the ps3 is not a quick process
second, direct x really eliminated many of the problems with varying system setups, thats what minimum system requirements are for. you still see bugs here with certain hardware... but its certainly not so difficulty that it is the main reason that pc gaming has fallen to the wayside in recent years... I believe that piracy and the perceived "value" of singleplayer games diminishing in the eyes of most gamers are huge factors. nowadays if your game doesnt have insane replay value like oblivion or have a compelling multiplayer component(such as hl2) your game doesnt sell very well. As an example I challenge you to think of a singleplayer pc game that has come out recently and sold well. If thats too difficult, try thinking of the last AAA singleplayer game that has come out for a pc...the list is small isnt it.

LostToys

07-05-2007, 11:16 PM

Why should we help them? Why should we buy an over priced console that's best feature is DVD upscaling.

No, you got it wrong. The best feature is Blu-Ray playback, not upscaling.

frankly, I'm pissed at anyone who wants to help a company who hasn't delivered yet.

You and my lack of 700 dollars would get along like puppies and sharks.

JimmyDanger

07-05-2007, 11:28 PM

All I'm saying is there is a lot of negative news posts about the PS3 lately on this site.

I have also seen a lot of anti-PS3 posts on this program I have on my PC called the internet.

I smell a conspiracy. It's all Evil Avatar's fault.

Trees. Green. I see.

Micasa

07-05-2007, 11:57 PM

"Anyway, this mess is all Sony's doing - there's no point feeling any sympathy for them right now as they pretty much talked and walked themselves into this corner."

Tough to feel sorry for them on a lack of third-party support when they said this, just this week:

"We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it..."

I guess when you don't give third-party devs much support, they go where the support can be found.

Micasa

07-06-2007, 12:01 AM

All I'm saying is there is a lot of negative news posts about the PS3 lately on this site. And you could say that is just because all the news about the PS3 is negative. Fair enough. But a simple story about one particular game that is coming out 3 months later for the PS3 than the 360 isn't just a simple story but rather construed as evidence that Electronic Arts isn't working as hard at developing games for the PS3 as they are for the 360. Which could be a bit of a stretch. And instead of it being a simple almost non story its an anti-PS3 story.

It's not just one game though. As was pointed out, Madden and NCAA will both be 60 fps on the 360 and 30 on the PS3. All Pro Football as well. If it was just one game, it wouldn't be cause to speculate - multiple games, you start to wonder what's up.

Or apparently you don't.

H1PO

07-06-2007, 12:39 AM

You and my lack of 700 dollars would get along like puppies and sharks.Can I atleast be the sharks? :p

Vandenh

07-06-2007, 02:56 AM

The best feature is Blu-Ray payback, not upscaling.

Fixed! ;)

Incidence

07-06-2007, 03:15 AM

You and my lack of 700 dollars would get along like puppies and sharks.
Maybe it because I'm tired but this statement doesn't make any sense, can someone explain?

Gorvi

07-06-2007, 03:24 AM

Why should we help them? Why should we buy an over priced console that's best feature is DVD upscaling. No. frankly, I'm pissed at anyone who wants to help a company who hasn't delivered yet. Untill sony delivers on what we want, we shouldn't help them and they shouldn't assume we'll help them.

Maybe some more competent company like Sega can make a console.
What, you mean like all the fanboys who rushed out to buy a 360 at launch? Because we all know how amazing the original XBOX was, right? Damn, I mean that thing had all of 6-7 decent exclusives in it's entire lifespan. That would sure make me want to rush out and buy their next console. :rolleyes:

DarkDaY

07-06-2007, 03:27 AM

Gorvi

07-06-2007, 03:31 AM

I like how every bad pr with the ps3 has now turned into a " ms has paid them off with thier endless pockets"

man,......if its ont one thing on one side, its the other, in ehre and every other place.

sony f@$ked up, and is paying, hopefully they will get their shit together sooner than later,
I want one,
just help me buy one sony.

"o, and careful, there is a dangerous lurker in here named Juice"
ture story
Oh, they have fucked up. Pretty badly. The gloom and doom though just gets irritating, especially how one sided things get. Microsoft isn't the best thing since sliced bread, Sony isn't the devil, they're much closer than most people want to admit.

DarkDaY

07-06-2007, 03:37 AM

ya i know, and with sonys line up a coming, I would by it with out the price drop at all. *shhh, keep that one mum, still want to save some doh*
with ratchet, lair ( looking good even though its factor five, the graphic dragon whore in me)
drakes, and what not, thats more than enough garentee for me,
still want the price drop please, but then, we all do

Karmakin

07-06-2007, 04:20 AM

PS3 owners are the new GameCube owners. I remember the developers taking the same stance on the Saturn.

QFT.

Now, I didn't think the GameCube was a failure. It had a lot of great games come out for it. It was obviously no PS2. But I enjoyed my GameCube, just as people will enjoy their PS3. If you like Sony's first/second party offerings, or the small number of PS3 exclusives, then go for it.

But it's clear, because of the lower install base that for multi-platform games tha t the PS3 is not the main focus.

DanAmerson

07-06-2007, 04:59 AM

This is ultra old almost a newb statement. Everyone is making their games on PC 1st , because that is what every game is made with. Then going to XBox360 - since it is easy, then porting to PS3 because they want the sales and its quick. This does mean features are removed due to the lack of time to optimize for the way the PS3 works vs everything else. All the majors are doing it this way. Most game engines are this way (Unreal, Renderware, and so on)

The only reason you don't see more PC versions is the hassle of 1million PC setups, too much to test for, too much hassle, not enough return.

I believe you are over-generalizing here. It's certainly the case that PC development is easier to get started and somewhat cheaper on the front end because you don't need specialized hardware or skills. That doesn't mean that every studio falls into that trap.

For example, I talked to some guys from EA Chicago a while back who told me that Fight Night Round 3 developed on PS3 as the lead SKU internally. It definitely depends on the studio. Additionally, I can say that major engines can not be generalized in the way that you did above. Renderware actually was strongest on PS2 and faltered somewhat on other platforms. I can personally say that PC-first is not the case for Gamebryo either although we've made that mistake in the past. We co-develop features on all three platforms.

dba

Fartacus

07-06-2007, 05:14 AM

Well, I think the learning curve for the X360 is definitely peaking, and it's currently outpacing the learning curve for the PS3. As a result, the PS3 versions of the multiplatform games are lagging behind in terms of framerate and data handoff to the SPEs. It's not like last-generation where the systems all had fairly similar architecture; you can't just press a button and have your middleware convert everything to run on another platform. Here, the Cell architecture needs some massaging to get it to run fast enough, and nobody yet has discovered the 'true' path towards speeding up the PS3 hardware to make the GPU really breathe fire. It'll come, but it will take time.

The PS3 GPU (RSX) will never breathe fire. One of the biggest problems developers are currently facing is the poor geometry processing performance of the RSX. I know of several developers cutting detail elements from their PS3 sKU to get performance up to par. Others are attempting to offload geometry processing to SPUs, and discovering that they have to store geometry in main memory and double or triple buffer it in order to do this because RSX to SPU transfers are so slow, and they wind up having to cut detail anyway because they've blown their memory budgets. The gap between 360 and PS3 performance and visuals is not closing, and it will only widen with time as developers really start exploiting the power of the Xenos GPU.

Fartacus

07-06-2007, 05:17 AM

But if they were working as hard on the PS3, why would there be a delay? It only hurts EA to release the game later then the 360 since they will lose out on co-marketing dollars.

Working as hard on the PS3 version is not sufficient to prevent a delay. The PS3 requires significantly more effort to develop for than the 360. They are merely working as hard on the PS3 (which is a generous move given the PS3's market position), thus the delay.

DubiousQuality

07-06-2007, 06:48 AM

Its a matter of for the 3rd console in a row Sony's dev tools/libraries suck ass when it comes to ease of use/developer friendliness. Thats the bottom line right there. When a title is far easier to program for on PC/360 which format do you think devs will focus on? Yeah not the PS3.

You'd think Sony would have learned by now, especially with Cell being a totally different type of beast to work with, to actually attempt to help devs make games for their system.

LostToys

07-06-2007, 09:05 AM

Can I atleast be the sharks? :p

Yes, yes you can. My money would much rather be the puppy, snuggled between some attractive woman's breast. Or is is snuggled between some woman's G-string? My money gets confused sometimes.

LostToys

07-06-2007, 09:09 AM

Maybe it because I'm tired but this statement doesn't make any sense, can someone explain?

He said that he was infuriated with people who bought the PS3 based off of expectations or future potential, rather than direct evidence (purchasable games) of the platform as a gaming device.

So, whimsically, I basically said we would not get along that well, since I bought the PS3 precisely for the future potential, though I am rather taken with it as a Blu-Ray player.

Incidence

07-06-2007, 10:51 AM

He said that he was infuriated with people who bought the PS3 based off of expectations or future potential, rather than direct evidence (purchasable games) of the platform as a gaming device.

So, whimsically, I basically said we would not get along that well, since I bought the PS3 precisely for the future potential, though I am rather taken with it as a Blu-Ray player.
Thanks. I was having a problem figuring that out.