Read my blog. I don't know why you're on the side of corporations like Microsoft over console owners who are getting shafted by lazy devs, but you clearly are. Do ya own stock in MS, or are you just shilling because you're bored?
- Do not own stock. It's a question of truth, of reality. And between the two of us, you're the one in denial. Really, calling everyone who works on the PS3 lazy is pure spin, and very insulting to the hardworking people who dev on the platform. It's not their fault that Sony made the PS3 a labyrinthine console.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
BTW, some people (myself included) see this as the 360's biggest weakness. Why buy the 360 version and pay for XBL when you can just get the PC version with better graphics, free multiplayer, and mod-support (usually), more HDD space, no expensive add-ons, etc.?
- Cost vs reward. Not everyone owns a (good enough) computer. Console are mass market, pc more niche. Devs like consoles because they only have to create to one spec and not deal with tons of specs as with PC. It's not a weakness therefore, especially if it convinced Devs to make for your console first. To the end user, all they care about is the end product, they don't care what's under the hood. There's no virtue in being different for the sake of being different. Sony has earned itself devs choosing its competitor to dev for first by making terrible/difficult hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Seriously, why is it a "plus" for you that the 360 is little more than a less-powerful gaming PC with all the limitations of a console?
- Because Devs are choosing it due to ease of development. That's always been a factor in this industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
But now we're getting off topic. Yes, the PS3 Bayonetta sucks, and yes-- it's because of lazy developers. Those are the facts here, and it seems even you won't bother to dispute that.
- I do dispute the conclusion of lazy, hell yeah, that's a huge insult and nothing but spin on the facts. You could only make that claim if -some- devs put out sub-par PS3 ports, but since the vast, vast majority of them end up this way, the conclusion must be there's fault with the PS3 hardware. Everyone already knows the stupid design of the PS3 hardware, we've already been over how the system has half the video memory, no unified memory architecture, and how the cell is a pain to work with anyway. Just accept it: good enough on the 360 > good enough on the PS3. That's the pattern we keep seeing.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
I don't even see how you label me an MS fanboy anyway. Where I see virtue I praise it, and you should know I've roundly praised Sony's motion control system above everyone else's, and like MS's motion control proposal the least. I'm an industry critic, I don't take sides except where I see virtue. I like Nintendo's handheld over Sony's, who doesn't. Where I see idiocay I'll call it out just as readily. Kutaragi = idiot. It's not my fault that you -only- defend Sony and Kutaragi is on Sony's side. I'm not so narrow-minded.
Your point seems to boil down to the fact that games made for the PS3 first seem to work just fine on the hardware. True, I'll give you that. So, you need to ask yourself why ordinary, intelligent developers are freely choosing to dev on the 360 first. It's obviously because the hardware is closer to a PC, meaning they can test it easily without difficult emulation hardware, and use techniques familiar from PC devving; and the fact that the 360 has a larger installed base. And then ask yourself why consumer's have also been freely choosing to buy a 360 more often than a PS3. Are consumers stupid? You imply they are with your silly 'PS3 features vs 360 features comparison.' You're the one denying facts here.
You want to call devs lazy, but they are doing what they can within the constraints given to them--both financial and technical, and you're unwilling to admit that achieving parity on the PS3 may take more effort and money than its worth to them. That's a choice forced upon them by the hardware and the economics of the industry. It's extremely hard to deny those two realities. But, somehow you're doing it. But devs don't have that luxury, they have to show actual results. And Bayonetta falls in line with the pattern of the industry.
If every other PS3 port was wonderful and Bayonetta's sucked, I'd accept the judgment of 'lazy devs', but not when its a continuing pattern. And if I was one of the people who'd worked on that PS3 port and you called me lazy without any of the facts, I'd be pretty upset and insulted. I'm surprised you're so willing to throw such insults their way, to be honest.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
Well, it's a simply fact that it's far harder to get the same graphical quality out of the PS3 as equivalent quality on 360. I'm sure Baghdad-Tee will deny this, but it's true. The PS3 graphics card is not as good as the 360. Thus, it takes more effort to achieve parity.
Do enlighten us then. I'm willing to listen to reason and logic, but unsupported statements don't impress me. We've already had someone put out the facts comparing the two graphics cards, especially that the PS3 version features half the video-memory, and we've seen the anecdotal evidence of the average PS3 game looking worse than the average 360 game. Do refute reality on that one please. Even if the PS3 card has slightly better capability in its featureset, it's still greatly handicapped by vid memory. Am I wrong? Are all the devs who make games on the 360 wrong? Is it rather that the Cell is such a pain to program for that less attention is being paid to the graphics side of things on the PS3, is that the problem. Someone please explain to me why PS3 games keep getting the graphical shaft. If you think the PS3 system as a whole is more conducive to making beautiful looking games than the 360, you have one hell of a burden of proof on you, 'cause that ain't what we been seein'.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
Where I see idiocay I'll call it out just as readily. Kutaragi = idiot. It's not my fault that you -only- defend Sony and Kutaragi is on Sony's side. I'm not so narrow-minded.
I don't usually reply to a patented Ane text wall, but the levels of irony here are too good to let go unnoticed! Not just your syntax blunder, but the fact that you chastise me for "insulting" these lazy Bayonetta devs in the same comment where you call Kutaragi an idiot! Good show!
For the record, nobody in their right minds can defend the Sony PSPGo, and I'm shocked you think I have ever done so. I've said it before and I'll say it here now-- that's got to be the worst product idea since the VirtuaBoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Your point seems to boil down to the fact that games made for the PS3 first seem to work just fine on the hardware. True, I'll give you that.
Well, if that's given then you already agree that only a lazy developer would decide to release the "full" version of a game on one console, and the half-assed imitation on the other. Back in the days of the SNES/Genesis serious developers like Konami and Virgin ended up just creating two independent versions of the same-titled game to counter the vastly different hardware architectures:
If the Bayonetta devs couldn't handle making their game port-friendly during the 360-phase they had the option of creating a PS3 title from scratch. The fact that they didn't do either means they're lazy or incompetent, take your pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
So, you need to ask yourself why ordinary, intelligent developers are freely choosing to dev on the 360 first. It's obviously because the hardware is closer to a PC, meaning they can test it easily without difficult emulation hardware, and use techniques familiar from PC devving...
They're working the 360 first because, as I've said before, it's what they're comfortable doing. There's nothing wrong with that, and if Bayonetta had been a 360 exclusive nobody would be calling them 'lazy'.
The fact that they signed a contract with Sega to make an identical PS3 version in a given amount of time in comparison to the 360 means they're a bunch of lazy devs, who rushed an inferior product out of the door in the end.
If I'm a boss and I hire some guy to make copies for me all day, and he comes back to me at the end of his shift with half the copies missing ink and the paper ripped, I'd call him a lazy, incompetent worker. I don't care if the new copier broke halfway through the job and he had to use the 'temperamental' old one, he was hired to do a job and failed to deliver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
You want to call devs lazy, but they are doing what they can within the constraints given to them--both financial and technical, and you're unwilling to admit that achieving parity on the PS3 may take more effort and money than its worth to them. That's a choice forced upon them by the hardware and the economics of the industry. It's extremely hard to deny those two realities. But, somehow you're doing it. But devs don't have that luxury, they have to show actual results. And Bayonetta falls in line with the pattern of the industry.
I'm waiting to hear any argument where you don't give excuses to these devs for failing to create a comparable PS3 version. Like you've said yourself, people should know by now that porting from the 360 to the PS3 isn't easy. If these devs were competent, they'd realize they'd have to 1) Go the PS3 > 360 route for a multiplatform title, or 2) follow the Ninja Gaiden Sigma route and just develop the PS3 version from the ground up after finishing the 360.
But instead they chose 3) Stay within their comfort zone of MS coding to work only to the strengths of the 360 on a MULTIPLATFORM title. Then lazily jam as much of the 360 version that they could into the PS3 version despite it not being optimized for Sony's console at the Nth hour, and call it a wrap!
Devs being under the gun with deadlines isn't some radical new development for the game industry. There has always been multiple formats and multiplatform titles. The way devs choose to handle these issues show their level of professionalism, and the Bayonetta devs will go down in history, demonstrably, as one of the laziest of this gen, hands down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
If every other PS3 port was wonderful and Bayonetta's sucked, I'd accept the judgment of 'lazy devs', but not when its a continuing pattern. And if I was one of the people who'd worked on that PS3 port and you called me lazy without any of the facts, I'd be pretty upset and insulted. I'm surprised you're so willing to throw such insults their way, to be honest.
Facts? The OP of this thread is all the facts you need-- the PS3 version SUCKS. Meaning the devs didn't bother to finish their job. They're lazy, stop giving them excuses for failing. They shouldn't agree to work on a PS3 version if they have no intention of finishing it, period.
And please stop treating this as me defending the "difficult-to-navigate" PS3 architecture. That has nothing to do with it. A dev was hired to make a quality title, and fell far short of the mark. If I were Sega, I would never hire these devs to make another multiplatform title for me after this game.
I don't know why you're on the side of corporations like Microsoft over console owners who are getting shafted by lazy devs
How about console owners getting shafted by stupid corporations like sony that make their console ridiculously difficult to develope for? Oh no wait that's the fault of lazy devs not using the full potential of the ps3. It can't possible be because of time constraints, money constraints or inexperience working on the ps3, all of which wouldn't have been problems if the ps3 was easy to develop for.
The facts here are:
1: The ps3 version sucks.
2: The ps3 is notoriously hard to develope for.
You keep blaming fact 1 on the devs for being lazy. And yet completely ignore the role sony played in fact number 2 which might very well be the direct cause of fact 1. In the end, wether you blame it on sony or lazy devs, the people that get shafted are the people that own a ps3 and don't have a 360. And all of this could have been avoided if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for. You even admit that neither console outperforms the other. So why in gods name did sony make the ps3 hard to develop for and why isn't it sony's fault that so many ps3 version suck (a consequence of the ps3 being hard to develop for, regardless of lazy devs, money or time constraints)?
How about console owners getting shafted by stupid corporations like sony that make their console ridiculously difficult to develope for?
Wait... what? You call Sony funding a bunch of 1st/2nd party devs out of their own pocket (a pocket that's well-documented to be losing billions per year, mind you) an example of them "shafting" their consumers?
Let me remind you that this is an issue about a 3rd party developer and their inability to produce satisfactory results. It has nothing to do with Sony as a corporation, no matter how much you or Ane continue to harp on them as a scapegoat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
Oh no wait that's the fault of lazy devs not using the full potential of the ps3. It can't possible be because of time constraints, money constraints or inexperience working on the ps3, all of which wouldn't have been problems if the ps3 was easy to develop for.
Again, more excuses. Tell me why Assassin's Creed looks the same on both consoles. Or why RE5 looks the same. Hell, even GTAIV is acceptable minus the exclusive DLC. Clearly it's possible for devs to produce good results on multiplatform titles, there shouldn't be any valid excuse for the Bayonetta devs to half-ass it if others aren't giving one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
The facts here are:
1: The ps3 version sucks.
2: The ps3 is notoriously hard to develope for.
#2 has no bearing on this issue at all. Stop trying to shift blame for the failing of a multiplatform developer.
Again, Sega hired the Bayonetta devs to do a job. Them coming back with Crappy the Craptacular Crap instead of a good PS3 Bayonetta shouldn't be excused under any circumstances. And certainly not by them whining "IT'S TOO HAAAAAARD TO COOOODE!!" It was their job, and they couldn't handle it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
You keep blaming fact 1 on the devs for being lazy. And yet completely ignore the role sony played in fact number 2 which might very well be the direct cause of fact 1.
No, I just don't believe in giving excuses for failure like you.
Sony has no responsibility to 3rd parties to make an easier development experience for them. THEY want access to the PS3 consumers, so THEY are responsible for creating a decent 3rd party title. Sega outsourced development to the Bayonetta team, hoping that they had the chops. Obviously Sega learned the hard way to handle development themselves for the next time.
So if you have to pass the buck to any corporation for the consumer getting screwed out of a decent Bayonetta, it's Sega for hiring lazy developers. Or, as is my opinion, the lazy developers themselves. But Sony?? That's just crazy fanboy talk!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
In the end, wether you blame it on sony or lazy devs, the people that get shafted are the people that own a ps3 and don't have a 360. And all of this could have been avoided if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for. You even admit that neither console outperforms the other. So why in gods name did sony make the ps3 hard to develop for and why isn't it sony's fault that so many ps3 version suck (a consequence of the ps3 being hard to develop for, regardless of lazy devs, money or time constraints)?
Well, I already explained why it isn't "Sony's fault", seeing as they had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 3RD PARTY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
Neither console outperforms the other, but there's no question the PS3 is a better console, overall. I'd take hardware reliability, blu-ray support, limited backwards-compatibility (all PSOne titles are compatible on all PS3s), and the ability to swap out cheap HDDs at will over the monstrosity that is the 360. THAT is why devs still feel the need to make 3rd party titles for the PS3, because they realize that there is a huge demand for the better-engineered PS3 over the shitty 360 in the eyes of many consumers.
So in the end, people getting shafted can't be blamed on Sony for creating an alternative to putting up with crappy 360 hardware reliability. In fact, it would be more MS's fault for trying to corner the market with their year-long headstart, and allowing the competition to survive when the had a serious shot at destroying the PS3 before they got out of the gates. Between the RROD fiasco and their price-gouging for add-ons/XBL Gold, 3rd parties have no choice but to deal with the PS3 to make a decent amount of money back from their investment.
So it thus falls to these devs who take on the responsibility of presenting their merchandise to the consumer who is interested in buying. Just like if a tire manufacturer releases a dangerous new model that causes spontaneous tire-blowouts in 1:5 cars due to a design flaw, the tire manufacturer would be held responsible for creating a shitty product-- not the auto manufacturer.
This is literally the same situation, and it likewise makes no sense to shift the blame to Sony for the failings of lazy devs that can't due what has already been shown to be capable in other titles.
Sony made the ps3 hard to develop for, and according to your own admission, doesn't end up with any kind of graphical superiority.
This results in crappy ps3 version of multiplatform games, regardless of the reason, be it lazy devs who can't be bothered to work harder, time or money constraint or whatever.
The people who get shafted are the people who only own a ps3.
If sony hadn't made the ps3 hard to develop for (ala the 360), none of these problems would have existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Wait... what? You call Sony funding a bunch of 1st/2nd party devs out of their own pocket (a pocket that's well-documented to be losing billions per year, mind you) an example of them "shafting" their consumers?
What does this have to do with ps3 versions often being worse than their 360 counterpart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Again, more excuses. Tell me why Assassin's Creed looks the same on both consoles. Or why RE5 looks the same. Hell, even GTAIV is acceptable minus the exclusive DLC. Clearly it's possible for devs to produce good results on multiplatform titles, there shouldn't be any valid excuse for the Bayonetta devs to half-ass it if others aren't giving one.
You're comparing Assasin's Creed, RE5 and GTAIV to bayonetta? You're saying because these multimillion titles can look just as good on the ps3 as on the 360 every game can? Or more importantly, that every developer can pull it off. If the choice is between spending an extra 5 million on developing the ps3 version or just phoning it in and shipping the ps3 version with some flaws, what do you think a SMALL developer is going to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Sony has no responsibility to 3rd parties to make an easier development experience for them.
How about a responsibility to their consumers to see that they get the best experience possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Neither console outperforms the other, but there's no question the PS3 is a better console, overall. I'd take hardware reliability, blu-ray support, limited backwards-compatibility (all PSOne titles are compatible on all PS3s), and the ability to swap out cheap HDDs at will over the monstrosity that is the 360. THAT is why devs still feel the need to make 3rd party titles for the PS3, because they realize that there is a huge demand for the better-engineered PS3 over the shitty 360 in the eyes of many consumers.
Your opinion which deals with a bunch of things that really don't matter when talking about the ps3 version of a game being graphically less than the 360 version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
So in the end, people getting shafted can't be blamed on Sony for creating an alternative to putting up with crappy 360 hardware reliability.
Again, what does the 360's crappy hardware reliability have to do with the ps3 version of a game being graphically less than the 360 version?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
In fact, it would be more MS's fault for trying to corner the market with their year-long headstart, and allowing the competition to survive when the had a serious shot at destroying the PS3 before they got out of the gates.
Wait, what?! So people getting shafted because the ps3 version of a game sucks compared to the 360 version is microsoft's fault?............................................ .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................
Sony made the ps3 hard to develop for, and according to your own admission, doesn't end up with any kind of graphical superiority.
This results in crappy ps3 version of multiplatform games, regardless of the reason, be it lazy devs who can't be bothered to work harder, time or money constraint or whatever.
NO.
For the thousandth time, one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that some developers can create decent multiplatform titles on both consoles while the Bayonetta devs could not clearly shows that the was a lack of effort on the part of the Bayonetta team.
The "why" is irrelevant. Bayonetta didn't give it their all, case closed. But I'm sure this argument will go over your head again, so I look forward to you "trying again"!
No, I'm really not...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
What does this have to do with ps3 versions often being worse than their 360 counterpart?
I mentioned Sony's financial commitments to the 1st/2nd party teams as a way to show you that Sony certainly is not out to "screw" their PS3 consumers, as you seem to think they are. They've heard the complaints of the difficult-to-navigate PS3 architecture, and responded by making some of the best exclusive games anyone has ever played, on ANY console.
I don't understand what you think Sony should be responsible for with 3rd party devs dropping the ball no a lackluster PS3 port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
You're comparing Assasin's Creed, RE5 and GTAIV to bayonetta? You're saying because these multimillion titles can look just as good on the ps3 as on the 360 every game can? Or more importantly, that every developer can pull it off. If the choice is between spending an extra 5 million on developing the ps3 version or just phoning it in and shipping the ps3 version with some flaws, what do you think a SMALL developer is going to do?
One, show me your source for these phantom "5 million" extra development costs-- otherwise you're talking out of your ass.
Two, when games like Capcom's Street Fighter 4 can actually end up looking/selling better than 360 version, then yes, it's solely a poor, lazy developer that is still in this day and age releasing substandard versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
How about a responsibility to their consumers to see that they get the best experience possible.
Again, this is why I brought up the "unrelated" 1st/2nd party Sony facts. And yes, they're both still unrelated to the matter of hand, viz. the lazy 3rd party devs of Bayonetta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
Your opinion which deals with a bunch of things that really don't matter when talking about the ps3 version of a game being graphically less than the 360 version.
Yep, because your opinion deals with a bunch of excuses that didn't matter to the FACT that the devs are a bunch of lazy workers. You brought up the factors that might have lead devs to taking shortcuts with the PS3 version, so I brought up reasons why the devs even attempted to make a PS3 version-- instead of just making a 360 version, alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
Again, what does the 360's crappy hardware reliability have to do with the ps3 version of a game being graphically less than the 360 version?
Absolutely nothing! Just like the PS3's hard-to-navigate, but just-as-graphically-capable architecture have nothing to do with a developer being lazy! I'm glad you finally understand!!
But I'll hold my breath on you acknowledging this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
Wait, what?! So people getting shafted because the ps3 version of a game sucks compared to the 360 version is microsoft's fault?
It makes just as much sense to blame Microsoft as it does to blame Sony, as far as I'm concerned. Either way, you sound like a fanboy with an ax to grind against someone who's ultimately unrelated to the lazy 3rd party devs who are really responsible for the crap that is PS3 Bayonetta.
NO.For the thousandth time, one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that some developers can create decent multiplatform titles on both consoles while the Bayonetta devs could not clearly shows that the was a lack of effort on the part of the Bayonetta team.
"For the thousandth time" there are other reasons why a port could suck besides "the devs are lazy". The ps3 is hard to develop for compared to the easy to develop for 360. So developing for the ps3 is likely to cost more time and/or money. Who says a small developer has the extra time and/or money to do that.
Not all developers are the same! Just because some produce excellent ps3 games doesn't mean all of them are able to do the same!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
I mentioned Sony's financial commitments to the 1st/2nd party teams as a way to show you that Sony certainly is not out to "screw" their PS3 consumers, as you seem to think they are. They've heard the complaints of the difficult-to-navigate PS3 architecture, and responded by making some of the best exclusive games anyone has ever played, on ANY console.
I'm not saying they're actively out to screw their consumers. I'm saying that their decision to make the ps3 hard to develop for ended up screwing the consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Yep, because your opinion deals with a bunch of excuses that didn't matter to the FACT that the devs are a bunch of lazy workers. You brought up the factors that might have lead devs to taking shortcuts with the PS3 version, so I brought up reasons why the devs even attempted to make a PS3 version-- instead of just making a 360 version, alone.
And why did the devs have to take shortcuts on the ps3 version? Again, it can't possible be time, money, experience constraints, no it has to be that they're lazy right?
In the end it really doesn't matter. Maybe you're right, maybe the devs were simply lazy, that doesn't change the fact that if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for the problem wouldn't have existed. And again, in the end, the people that get screwed are the people who only own a ps3.
I think the PS3 version is better, because it's on Blu-ray.
The SDF salutes you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel
And why did the devs have to take shortcuts on the ps3 version? Again, it can't possible be time, money, experience constraints, no it has to be that they're lazy right?
In the end it really doesn't matter. Maybe you're right, maybe the devs were simply lazy, that doesn't change the fact that if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for the problem wouldn't have existed. And again, in the end, the people that get screwed are the people who only own a ps3.
Look, we can go back and forth like this all day. I stand by my opinion that anything less than an "A" effort for any reason is being lazy, so feel free to maintain that if something is too hard/complicated to do then it's okay to give up on it even if it's your job.
Look, we can go back and forth like this all day. I stand by my opinion that anything less than an "A" effort for any reason is being lazy, so feel free to maintain that if something is too hard/complicated to do then it's okay to give up on it even if it's your job.
And how about you respond to "if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for the problem wouldn't have existed.". This is the third time I've made this argument and the third time you've ignored it in favour of wether or not the devs are lazy or it's some other factor.
In my last point I even conceded to you that the devs might simply have been lazy BUT (here we go again): "if sony had made the ps3 easy to develop for the problem wouldn't have existed."
