Is the PlayStation 3 losing development support?

[Murmillo]

Joystiq posted this: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000803061082/

Which does ask an interesting question. Could the complex nature of the PS3 drive away smaller dev houses to the far much easier and friendlier 360? Even though the 360s are in their final development kits while PS3 are just starting their alphas, from the start people were stating that the alpha 360 kits were easy to work with and very few people have had anything popular to say about the PS3 kits.

Even if more PS3's are sold (keeping the steam from the PS2/Xbox sales numbers), is the all the extra trouble, headaches and development time required (rumor on PS3 difficulty) worth it even though you might be able to sell more copies to a bigger fan base?

This is not a post to state everybody is jumping ship and PS3 will be nothing but a funny looking Blue-Ray player on launch, but will a few small but important development houses trade their long Sony lifestyle to live under the new big house of Microsoft.

[KamaItachi]

I can't open that article at work, but I read something about Nippon Ichi on Gamespot the other day. The CEO who has been a firm supporter of the PS2 has stated that if the architecture for the next gen machine was too complicated they'd move development to other machines.

Is that the same one?

[Danin]

Wasn't the PS2 notoriously dificult to develop for as well?

That didn't seem to stop anyone.

[DCJoeDog]

I still hold to the belief that PS3 will be the BIG loser this time around, with XBOX360 being the winner. 500+ dollars for a machine that even the makers don't want to call a game system... seems fishy to me.

[InstaPete]

psst - not to be a nitpicker, but I think you meant "positive", not "popular", right?

very few people have had anything popular to say about the PS3 kits.

Also, do we have any links with anyone talking at all about development on the PS3? i'd be interested to read about that.

[mister_slim]

That has to be the worst sourced article I've read in a while. Joystik really seems to love playing Telephone.

[KamaItachi]

The only thing I've seen that I can remember off the top of my head was the Itagaki interview a few days ago. He said that development for the PS3 was too complicated. How much salt you want to take that with is entirely up to you.

[Murmillo]

I know this wasn't the "best of sources" but I'd figure as much fun as we had with the x360 and its thousand a day rumors, we could have fun with the PS3 for awhile.

Even tho we have the telephone effect going on here, it is still a valid question with everything we have heard so far.

[Dracula-X]

Seems more like a vehicle to stir up a console war, that article had absolutely nothing of substance. Joystiq == teh crap.

[XenonCJ]

I'd love to see Sony fail at the PS3 just because I used to be a Sony fanboi until all my Sony electronics started failing.... PS1, PS2 (3 times), Television (many issues), 2 car stereos.... Fucking Microsoft all the way FTW... (also Nintendo's new controller is teh suk)

[Zeal]

It's common knowledge at this point that the PS3 is difficult to develop for. Countless developers have stated the same thing.

[Abash Alarmist]

I'd love to see Sony fail at the PS3 just because I used to be a Sony fanboi until all my Sony electronics started failing.... PS1, PS2 (3 times), Television (many issues), 2 car stereos.... Fucking Microsoft all the way FTW... (also Nintendo's new controller is teh suk)

I know that this isn't exactly unique, but neither was your rant, but hey...

Have you actually had the chance to try the new Nintendo controller? Do you have anything that will back up your little standoff against Nintendo's controller other than the fact that it is "different" from the rest of the controllers out there??? Personally, you need to shut your god damn mouth until you have actually had a chance to use it and show what you think about it based off that experience, not your superficial and ignorant view that you currently hold now. Go back to the depths of hell that you come from fanboy.

[RMan]

I think a bunch of people make too big of a deal about the difficulty of coding for these systems. In the end, even if it takes twice as long to code for than the 360 (which is extremely unlikely), it will make little difference to the overall development since 80% to 90% of the man hours are going to be spent on content development, not coding. This is not a defense of Sony, really, I still think they’re going to do slightly worse than the 360 this time around.

[Heretic Machine]

Guys, this is the company that made the PS2... of course it will be shit. It will be a steaming pile of shit, and everyone will buy it, and Grand Theft Auto will remain semi-exclusive.

[fitbabits]

So in answer to the question:

Is the PlayStation 3 losing development support?

My answer is:

Aye, that she is. (Based on nothing more than a deep mistrust of Sony and the fact that they seem to be treading water right now.)

[Heretic Machine]

I think a bunch of people make too big of a deal about the difficulty of coding for these systems. In the end, even if it takes twice as long to code for than the 360 (which is extremely unlikely), it will make little difference to the overall development since 80% to 90% of the man hours are going to be spent on content development, not coding. This is not a defense of Sony, really, I still think they’re going to do slightly worse than the 360 this time around.

I'm sorry dude, but you obviously have no idea how game development works. It takes a LONG time to get stable code, way longer than it takes to throw some models and textures together.

[AspectVoid]

Frankly, everyone kepts saying the exact same thing about how the PS2 is a pain in the ass to program for back when it was coming out, and we all know how much that hurt Sony. Oh yeah, the PS2 was the best selling console this generation by an insane amount and has the largest library of games by an insane amount.

Frankly, this means absolutely nothing.

[Kelegacy]

Guys, this is the company that made the PS2... of course it will be shit. It will be a steaming pile of shit, and everyone will buy it, and Grand Theft Auto will remain semi-exclusive.

The PS2 is a pile of shit? You should have told me that 6 years ago before I bought mine, because then I could have avoided the many years of fun I've had with it.

[Zeal]

Hardware-wise, the PS2 really is shit.

[Leaving Hope]

Wasn't the PS2 notoriously dificult to develop for as well?

Yes, that was the story during the first gen games on PS2. After a while, that died down. Whether it was bullshit, or the developers gained experience developing for the PS2 and it got easier, I don't know.

One thing that we can probably assume is that Revolution will be the easiest platform of the three to develop for, especially if it only has one core. Nintendo may get some third party developers to create for their console who just can't afford the costs and development times the other two consoles will require.

I respect Microsoft for trying to come up with a developer's kit that includes tools that help streamline the development of games--XNA, or whatever it's called. It sounds like they went out and asked the developers what would make their lives easier, and delivered in a number of ways. That's not to say coding for a multi core CPU won't be a bitch, but I think the PS3 takes the prize for being the most difficult console to develop for.

In the end, I think we the consumers suffer when these systems are harder to program for. A more complicated architecture could lead to buggy games, long waits between releases, and more expensive titles (59.99 up from 49.99).

[Leaving Hope]

I'm sorry dude, but you obviously have no idea how game development works. It takes a LONG time to get stable code, way longer than it takes to throw some models and textures together.

I think you're right, Perigon. As a designer and a developer, I've seen both sides of the fence. The programming team is usually the first group to start, and the last one to finish. They have to build the engine, and evolve it as the designers and conceptual guys come up with their ideas for levels. At the end of the project, when all of the content is in, they're the ones who are testing and retesting until the very last possible minute.

[Zeal]

A game's engine is everything, hence the name. It's where the money, time and manpower goes.

[Racknahm]

I know that this isn't exactly unique, but neither was your rant, but hey...

Have you actually had the chance to try the new Nintendo controller? Do you have anything that will back up your little standoff against Nintendo's controller other than the fact that it is "different" from the rest of the controllers out there??? Personally, you need to shut your god damn mouth until you have actually had a chance to use it and show what you think about it based off that experience, not your superficial and ignorant view that you currently hold now. Go back to the depths of hell that you come from fanboy.
Personally, I think the Revolution's controller has a lot of potential.

[RMan]

I'm sorry dude, but you obviously have no idea how game development works. It takes a LONG time to get stable code, way longer than it takes to throw some models and textures together.
Geesh, well, then you can TRY to explain to me how, even on the current generation, only about 1/4th of the developers on a team are programmers (note, I said content developers, which means pretty much everything that’s not code, including audio and animation). Next, try to explain to me how the next generation, with a much greater push for graphic fidelity and overall production values, will not result in a higher number of artists, animators, etc. I know it takes time, as does everything, but it’s still a fraction of the overall development process, especially since the majority of developers will just be migrating their code base or licensing another (they’re hardly starting from scratch). Calling content development “throwing some models and textures together” shows a striking level of ignorance about game development.

[H.Bogard]

In the end, I think we the consumers suffer

If only I had a dollar each time i heard that :rolleyes:

[parallels]

Geesh, well, then you can TRY to explain to me how, even on the current generation, only about 1/4th of the developers on a team are programmers

It's usually a bad idea to have too many people trying to write code at once, as it's a tricky, detail-oriented process that doesn't lend itself well to having too many people giving their input -- the smallest number you can get away with is best.

[RMan]

It's usually a bad idea to have too many people trying to write code at once, as it's a tricky, detail-oriented process that doesn't lend itself well to having too many people giving their input -- the smallest number you can get away with is best.
Yea, I agree, I was actually asking in context with Perigon's post.
A game's engine is everything, hence the name. It's where the money, time and manpower goes.
So why do companies license an engine and still spend 100 man years developing their game. Do you think they do this for fun, or maybe, because an engine no more makes a game than an engine makes a car.

[Zeal]

A good engine is the first step to having a good game.

i.e., the original Halo.

[Kentor]

So why do companies license an engine and still spend 100 man years developing their game. Do you think they do this for fun, or maybe, because an engine no more makes a game than an engine makes a car.The thing is that content creation is typically far easier to segment at a high granularity and independently work on than code. If you need more art assets you can usually just throw more artists at the problem. Software development cannot be easily segment at high granularity, thus you very rapidly reach a point where adding more developers will actual slow progress. The typical game company will schedule a product to ship in what they deem is the absolute minimum time required, which is almost always gated by the software development time.

It doesn't matter how many man hours are required really. If you need a 1000 man hours worth of art assets in 12 months just make sure you have around 100 artists. The game will take you as long as your software development takes. Sure that's pretty sad, and extremely poor project management, but that is how most game companies operate. Sure there are exceptions, however the majority still operate in the rolling disaster style of development.

The PS3 is harder to develop for. It's not a good platform. Every friend I know who has worked with PS3 development tools has complained bitterly about how horrendous their debug tools are, or issues with compilers, or the lack of documentation, or the lack of support, or the lack of good solid libraries, and more. Even before you get into the shear complexity of the task, a console game developer is presented with either a stable, polished, comprehensive platform that is extremely well documented, or a poorly supported, poorly documented platform with tools that are both inferior and unreliable. Guess which one the PS3 is.

So why would you develop for the PS3? You'll probably get a larger install base. Better performance? Probably not at all.

A few of the more established game companies have code bases that are at least a half a decade old. Some are using libraries with code dating back more than a decade. Almost all of that code is not designed to be concurrent and most definitely is not thread safe. At these companies probably almost all the developers who originally developed that code are gone. So you're left with sprawling code of questionable quality that is not thread safe and just about no one at the company has touched in years. Are you going to sit there and try to parallelize your engine with this code? No. It would probably be faster to rewrite everything from scratch.

Let's go through a little fictional story first.... So you have this PS3 that's probably a decent piece of hardware, but the software platform is weak at best. You have to spend an extra X number of months building tools and libraries just to get the thing off the ground then suddenly E3 is a week away. You have no game. You just have tools and a library. Engineers look around at each other. Project managers panic. A horde of artists are curning away at art assets. Both turn around and look at the huge horde of artists and then back at what meagre game code they do have. You can guess what comes next.

So E3 is over, and you now have some tools, libraries, and some rough engine code. Good. Oh wait, there was something that needs to made.... what was it? Oh yeah a game. So the engineers now look at the PS3 and confirm their initial suspicious: theirs no way they can leverage the platform before their deadline... heck they already have to cut half of the features and shorten the game. So what now? Being a sane team, they decide to be extremely conservative and only run code that is independent of each other in parallel. You get some performance increase... just not nearly close to the hardware's capacity since you're leaving the SPUs idle for far longer than anyone would like.

Let's move over to the Xbox 360 software teams. A lot of the code that the PS3 team generated initially simply is not necessary. Coding of the actual game began somewhat earlier than the PS3 team. The 360 team decides to take a similar conversative approach as the PS3 team, however, the performance of the game is better than on the PS3 since less effort is required to leverage the system. Maybe the PS3 hardware is a billion times faster, no one at the game company cares since they can't leverage it in time for ship.

Some project manager at the company is sitting around looking at all of this and thinks: what if the Xbox 360's market share isn't all that bad this time around? We're throwing tonnes of resources at PS3 development and it's still taking longer to achieve similar results. Now at the same time another game development house is sitting around watching all of this. This other company realizes that they do not have the resources to fund development on both platforms and achieve a sufficient level of fidelity. So a manager and a few engineers at this other company sits down with their friend the project manager and talk about licencing either their PS3 or 360 software for a new game. Questions of install base come up, the project manager comments that 360 market penetration will probably better this time around. After about an hour of horror stories, the engineers stare at the manager, and the manager sits up slowly. Recalling the nightmare he had developing an early title for the PS2 and realizing the PS3 is going to be an even bigger disaster he says, "Yeah... I think we'll probably go with the 360 for now. We'll see what happens after launch with the PS3."

Sure, a lot of game studios will just go with shear market penetration, but this time around a lot of PS2 developers are taking a good long look at 360 versus PS3 and wondering whether all that pain was worth it. Afterall, if you can spend less time messing with platform issues and deficencies, you'll have a lot more time to spend on making the actual game. There's not many developers that make AAA titles; those who don't can't really sell anywhere near the size of the console's install base. So if you can make the game so much better, maybe a smaller install base isn't really an issue.....

[parallels]

A good engine is the first step to having a good game.

i.e., the original Halo.

Halo's engine was fantastic... at rendering the same room-bridge-room combination over and over again.

[Dracula-X]

Epic got their engine running on early PS3 kits after having them for just under two months. Sweeney said it was "easy" at the E3. Mark Rein indicates the same:

It's a very normal development platform, something we can get our hands around. We already know Open GL; we've been doing Open GL since Unreal 1. We already know Nvidia graphics. PowerPC? Well, we've won Macintosh game of the year going back I don't know how many years.

We had the dev kit for probably just under two months, and look what we were able to produce. We were able to get Unreal Engine 3 up and running very quickly on it, and we were able to get a great demo going. Part of the reason why we were able to get the demo running isn't just our familiarity with the PlayStation 3 development environment, but also the fact that all of the content in Unreal Engine 3 is 100 percent compatible between the PC and the PlayStation 3. When we run an Nvidia-based Open GL shader on PC, and we go to run the same thing on PlayStation 3, we know it's going to be exactly the same, look exactly the same. There's no surprises, and that's great. It's a fantastic environment for people using our technology.
All that with with a horrendous development environment, too. Go figure.

All indications are that Sony is bending over backwards to make things far easier for developers on the PS3: An OpenGL based API. They've acquired SN Systems for their acclaimed ProDG toolset that all PS3 developers will now use. Ageia and Havok licensing deals. Unreal 3 engine sublicensing deal, now all developers can opt to use it and be productive on day 1. Renderware middleware licensing solution (used by loads of popular games like GTA, Burnout, etc) means that you don't waste time and can build your title for both 360 and PS3 on day 1.

These facts and firsthand accounts run contrary to much of the rumors and suppositions (read: talking out the ass) I've been reading. There is no doubt that the 360 may be an easier platform to work on, but the PS3 seems an order of magnitude easier than the PS2 was to deal with.

[rpdillon]

So, I'm a subscriber to PSM because I got it free with a $17.00 IGN subscription. Anyway, last month, PSM had a lot of crappy things to say about the PSP and the PS3. They seem (from the 5 issues I've gotten so far) to be quite straightforward in their reporting. This site seems to bash Sony at every turn, so I thought I'd quote some stuff PSM quoted developers working with both the 360 kits and the PS3 kits had to say:

First off, we know that the UT2007 team said that they ported their engine to PS3 in 3 months, and ran a live demo at E3 using it. They said it was "easy to develop" on the PS3.

Of course, these guys are anonymous, but I quote PSM here:
"'The bitching this round sounds the opposite of the last. Both are friendly, but the PS3 may actually be friendlier,' reports oe of our PS3 and Xbox 360 development sources, who wished to remain anonymous. 'People are finding that the [Xbox] 360 has some stupid bottlenecks.'"

Lastly, this one doesn't have to do with ease of use, but rather power:
"The consensus now is that the PS3 is considerably more powerful then the Xbox 360 across the board."
This is supposedly from a developer who works with both platforms.

PSM goes on to say a lot of interesting things, like a direct XBox Live competitor from Sony (doesn't mention pricing or even if it has a price) that has been in the works for 2 years.

Anyway, I think the race will be closer than Evil does, and while I traditionally defend Sony (and hate MS - I truly despise Windows), I'm thinking of picking up a 360 this round. Nevertheless, I think the PS3 will be cool (if expensive...PSM quoted $399, but who knows).

[ElectricMonk]

Yes, that was the story during the first gen games on PS2. After a while, that died down. Whether it was bullshit, or the developers gained experience developing for the PS2 and it got easier, I don't know.


The reason it became easier is because people started using middleware platforms like renderware. So only these middleware people had to deal with the ps2 difficulties, not the devs. Before the ps2 almost nobody used middleware.


One thing that we can probably assume is that Revolution will be the easiest platform of the three to develop for, especially if it only has one core. Nintendo may get some third party developers to create for their console who just can't afford the costs and development times the other two consoles will require.


The reason the 360 is easy to develop for is because of the dev software they have made, not because of the number of cores. I've heard the first ps2 dev kits were only a linux console-based assembler and debugger. If the first ps3 kits are the same thing sony has no chance in this console war.

Just think back at the first year after launch for both the ps2 and the xbox. the ps2 had to wait a year until mgs2 and gt3 were released, and then a year after that for more AAA titles. xbox launched with halo and has had a steady stream of great games since.

If this repeats itself, do you think even the most rabid sony fanboi will be able to wait until christmas 2007? when 360 gamers will be on their second holiday season?

[NonSoft]

The thing is that content creation is typically far easier to segment at a high granularity and independently work on than code. If you need more art assets you can usually just throw more artists at the problem. Software development cannot be easily segment at high granularity, thus you very rapidly reach a point where adding more developers will actual slow progress. The typical game company will schedule a product to ship in what they deem is the absolute minimum time required, which is almost always gated by the software development time.

It doesn't matter how many man hours are required really. If you need a 1000 man hours worth of art assets in 12 months just make sure you have around 100 artists. The game will take you as long as your software development takes.


That isn't exactly true. To some extent it is easier to throw more artists at a problem as opposed to developers. However, there is a pretty easily achieved breaking point which leads to a completely disjointed art style. Most games attempt to create some sort of cohesive visual style in the enviroments and characters. That is pretty hard to achieve when there are too many sources.
Sure that's pretty sad, and extremely poor project management, but that is how most game companies operate. Sure there are exceptions, however the majority still operate in the rolling disaster style of development.


The PS3 is harder to develop for. It's not a good platform. Every friend I know who has worked with PS3 development tools has complained bitterly about how horrendous their debug tools are, or issues with compilers, or the lack of documentation, or the lack of support, or the lack of good solid libraries, and more. Even before you get into the shear complexity of the task, a console game developer is presented with either a stable, polished, comprehensive platform that is extremely well documented, or a poorly supported, poorly documented platform with tools that are both inferior and unreliable. Guess which one the PS3 is.



So why would you develop for the PS3? You'll probably get a larger install base. Better performance? Probably not at all.


Sorry, was too much speculation here for me to take this seriously.


Let's go through a little fictional story first.... So you have this PS3 that's probably a decent piece of hardware, but the software platform is weak at best. You have to spend an extra X number of months building tools and libraries just to get the thing off the ground then suddenly E3 is a week away. You have no game. You just have tools and a library. Engineers look around at each other. Project managers panic. A horde of artists are curning away at art assets. Both turn around and look at the huge horde of artists and then back at what meagre game code they do have. You can guess what comes next.

[I]So E3 is over, and you now have some tools, libraries, and some rough engine code. Good. Oh wait, there was something that needs to made.... what was it? Oh yeah a game. So the engineers now look at the PS3 and confirm their initial suspicious: theirs no way they can leverage the platform before their deadline... heck they already have to cut half of the features and shorten the game. So what now? Being a sane team, they decide to be extremely conservative and only run code that is independent of each other in parallel. You get some performance increase... just not nearly close to the hardware's capacity since you're leaving the SPUs idle for far longer than anyone would like.

Let's move over to the Xbox 360 software teams. A lot of the code that the PS3 team generated initially simply is not necessary. Coding of the actual game began somewhat earlier than the PS3 team. The 360 team decides to take a similar conversative approach as the PS3 team, however, the performance of the game is better than on the PS3 since less effort is required to leverage the system. Maybe the PS3 hardware is a billion times faster, no one at the game company cares since they can't leverage it in time for ship.

Some project manager at the company is sitting around looking at all of this and thinks: what if the Xbox 360's market share isn't all that bad this time around? We're throwing tonnes of resources at PS3 development and it's still taking longer to achieve similar results. Now at the same time another game development house is sitting around watching all of this. This other company realizes that they do not have the resources to fund development on both platforms and achieve a sufficient level of fidelity. So a manager and a few engineers at this other company sits down with their friend the project manager and talk about licencing either their PS3 or 360 software for a new game. Questions of install base come up, the project manager comments that 360 market penetration will probably better this time around. After about an hour of horror stories, the engineers stare at the manager, and the manager sits up slowly. Recalling the nightmare he had developing an early title for the PS2 and realizing the PS3 is going to be an even bigger disaster he says, "Yeah... I think we'll probably go with the 360 for now. We'll see what happens after launch with the PS3."


So what exactly was the point of this "little fictional story"? Its some sort of fantasy I guess? Or perhaps your are prescient and you have already seen this happen? I'm lost. :confused:


There's not many developers that make AAA titles; those who don't can't really sell anywhere near the size of the console's install base. So if you can make the game so much better, maybe a smaller install base isn't really an issue.....

Are you serious? Obviously a developer can't sell anywhere near the size of the console's install base. Let's see though, if you think you can sell to 10% of the install base... which would you rather have 10% of 1,000,000 or 10% of 100,000?

Lets not forget that the PS2 was supposed to be hard to develop for as well and as far as I can tell it fared ok. More importantly though it actually has the most diverse selection of developers(in terms of small to large development houses) and level of complexity.

I don't know or care which console will be the most difficult to develop for. It is a bit too early to start speculating though, especially without even having a decent source... well aside from the little fictional stories that is.

[Kentor]

*shrugs* You people can base your opinion on as many magazine articles and interviews as you want.

[Player 1]

A good engine is the first step to having a good game.

Good God no. No a thousand times. That idea suits this Sony-bashing topic (EA Sony bashing? Well I never!) but it's not a mantra you'll ever hear me utter.

A good idea is the first step to having a good game. Then it's backed up by good design and thoughtful execution. A decent engine may be in there somewhere, but it is never a crucial step in making a good game.

Dracula-X, Kentor, I agree with your posts 100%. People like Tim Sweeney and John Carmack are good programmers. They don't spend their time bitching at having to work things out, they go off and work things out. I've spent my time managing enough programmers to know that the ones who complain are the ones looking for excuses. Sony's development support revolutionised the industry from within with PlayStation - all the other manufacturers ended up playing catch-up.

In all seriousness, it's a chicken and egg scenario. The third parties will favour whichever machine gets the market share.

Sony have the undisputed killer apps of GTA, Metal Gear and Gran Tourismo. These games go beyond the gamer demographic and are generally known by everyone - whether they're gamers or not. Halo is the closest thing that Xbox can offer to match that sort of profile - and I don't think as many people know of Halo as they do GTA.

Once the GTA and Metal Gear balls start rolling we all know what will happen.

[Zeal]

Out of all of those, only GTA was able to compete with Halo.

[Player 1]

Well, look at it this way,

Sony have got the wannabe gangsta, authentic petrol-head and cold war gun freaks markets covered.

Microsoft have sci-fi nerds market covered.

I admit, Microsoft are coming out fighting and are a lot stronger, but I really don't think this "Aww man, it's too tricky to code for!" nonsense is going to have a detrimental effect on PS3 to any great degree. Check your history books, precisely the same thing was said about PS2.

I tend to go with historic fact rather than wishful thinking. Saves on disappointments.

[Kentor]

Dracula-X, Kentor, I agree with your posts 100%. People like Tim Sweeney and John Carmack are good programmers. They don't spend their time bitching at having to work things out, they go off and work things out. I've spent my time managing enough programmers to know that the ones who complain are the ones looking for excuses.Then you probably know for every Carmack a team has, it will also have at least a dozen far weaker developers (well, given that there are a dozen developers). Unless you take the time to train your own personel, you're going to end up with a lot of developers who simply will not have the knowledge or experience to deliver good quality results without quite a bit of assistance, whether it's via tools, additional documentation, or assistance.

Once you take that support away, you suddenly are left with a whole bunch of liabilities. The PS3 evalkits shipped with very little in the way of support overall, and it will have left those weaker developers without a solid tool chain and libraries for around 4 months by the beginning of October. Even with the tool chain, you'll probably be left with a few people who were quite useful on previous projects, but now are liabilities due to a lack of experience with concurrency.

Since the PS2, SCE's developer support mantra has seemed to be good, but a bit late. Now instead of 2 years late, it's around 6 months late. If you have a few years of good embedded or firmware experience, just having VIM and a mostly well behaved compiler is probably enough, but that's not very many developers.

Things like optomizing compilers, JTAG, LEX/YACC, and even things like HyperThreading are brilliant: they increase the number of developers who can effectively solve a problem, while augmenting those who already could. There's probably a few people who can write a parser more efficiently than what LEX/YACC can produce, or debug low level timing issues without JTAG, or keep P4 pipeline saturated, but all these tasks often require a great deal of development time and experience.

I don't think you meant it in this manner, but it really sounds like you're dismissing complaints altogether. It might be the person, it might be the system, but something probably isn't right.

Once the GTA and Metal Gear balls start rolling we all know what will happen.Of course, but it seems like Sony is giving MS advantages unnecessarily.

[HumpYourWay]

Is that article significant in any way? Or just the usual Evil Avatar/Joystik Sony bashing.
Lately the bitter Nintendo fanboy league is writing more and more angry articles... ever since the controller announcement of nintendo :P

[Kentor]

Out of all of those, only GTA was able to compete with Halo.Ummm.... Halo 2 sold around 6.5 million units or so, GTA:SA for PS2 sold over 12 million units. Overall, the GTA series has sold around 26 million units for the PS2 versus the Halo series 10.5 million units for Xbox.

[Okamura_Takashi]

Let's go through a little fictional story first.... So you have this PS3 that's probably a decent piece of hardware, but the software platform is weak at best....

That story hit the nail that is real life so hard on the hard, I'm still feeling the reverberations.

[Azrikam]

I think Kentor hit the nail on the head with his fictional anecdote. Is it mostly speculation? Yes. Is it guaranteed to happen? No. But, it's definitely a possibility.

And those who say the PS2 wasn't hurt by being difficult to program for, take a look at all the games that were released on both systems at the same time, with the XBox version getting better reviews. (and there were a lot of them) Sure, some of that had to do with the console specs, but I think more of it had to do with ease of programming.

[bapenguin]

It may be more difficult to develop for....but that didn't hurt the PS2.

[DannoHung]

I'm sorry dude, but you obviously have no idea how game development works. It takes a LONG time to get stable code, way longer than it takes to throw some models and textures together.

Yeah, but we're not talking about some models and textures anymore. This is the era where you need hundreds if not thousands of models and textures (4 or 5 sets at LEAST for each model!), sounds, animatics, levels, and whatever else content is needed. In AAA Game Development now the bulk of the staff is devoted to the development of the game assets as opposed to the code.

The code is obviously important, but it takes second place to assets in determining the success of a game.

That's not to say that the code isn't important, but I think this will only manifest itself in the few dozen third party titles that smaller dev houses position for each system. Everything else is going multi-plat because the market demands it at the cost of code acuity.

If there's a killer app in those titles is what the question will probablly be.

PS: Kentor: Compare the install bases.

[score]

take a look at all the games that were released on both systems at the same time, with the XBox version getting better reviews. (and there were a lot of them) Sure, some of that had to do with the console specs, but I think more of it had to do with ease of programming.

Not sure I agree with you there. Cross platform games score better on the XBOX generally because they look better. That is everything to do with console specs. Ease of programming would only come into it if they were on a level hardware footing (like what we will see with the 360/PS3).

[XenonCJ]

I know that this isn't exactly unique, but neither was your rant, but hey...

Have you actually had the chance to try the new Nintendo controller? Do you have anything that will back up your little standoff against Nintendo's controller other than the fact that it is "different" from the rest of the controllers out there??? Personally, you need to shut your god damn mouth until you have actually had a chance to use it and show what you think about it based off that experience, not your superficial and ignorant view that you currently hold now. Go back to the depths of hell that you come from fanboy.ahahah fuck yeah - that was exaclty the response I was looking for. I just thew that bit in at the end to get people like you riled up.

But let's get real here dude - you don't always have to USE a controller to realize it sucks. It's not like I'm NEW to video games, visual observaion is clearly acceptable and I know what I like.

But feel free to play your children's games on that "sweet" controller, I'm sure you'll have a great time.

[Danin]

ahahah fuck yeah - that was exaclty the response I was looking for. I just thew that bit in at the end to get people like you riled up.

But let's get real here dude - you don't always have to USE a controller to realize it sucks. It's not like I'm NEW to video games, visual observaion is clearly acceptable and I know what I like.

But feel free to play your children's games on that "sweet" controller, I'm sure you'll have a great time.

Who fed the troll? -_-;;

[mister_slim]

If I remember correctly, there was a year between Carmack finishing the Doom 3 engine and id finishing the art.

But let's get real here dude - you don't always have to USE a controller to realize it sucks. It's not like I'm NEW to video games, visual observaion is clearly acceptable and I know what I like.
You like poor interfaces?

[Kelegacy]

But feel free to play your children's games on that "sweet" controller, I'm sure you'll have a great time.

Look's like we've found our Daily Retard Award winner.

[Murmillo]

It may be more difficult to develop for....but that didn't hurt the PS2.
But that because the base cost for developing for a PS2 wasn't expensive. Base cost for hardly any of the games made for the current gen were not that expensive. So the payoff to games sold over the the cost of making one (head aches and all) wasn't all that much to concern.

Now, we have the rumors that the PS3 isn't all that better to work with then a PS2, and the rumors that making a next gen game are going to require a hell lot of more money to make. This news could be a catalysts that cause a lot of smaller developers to to flee Sony. Not because the want to but because sticking with Sony would hurt them more in the pockets then it would moving to the x360.

Some will have no problem with the PS3 while others may have a lot.