PDA

View Full Version : PS3 losing dev support?


Pages : [1] 2

Ruined
09-30-05, 08:45 PM
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000803061082/#comments

"Is the PlayStation 3 losing development support?

Rumors are flying high, spreading across a network of Japanese, Dutch, and German websites, that developers are wary of creating content for the PlayStation 3. Unfortunately, the article in question is difficult to decipher, but perhaps someone with knowledge of Japanese can give us the clear scoop. There’s also a Dutch article that has a quote in (broken) English: “In the (Japanese) game industry, many people are losing trust in Kutaragi’s non-stop pursue of this evolution, people are leaving PS3 at a rate worse than Nintendo’s GameCube era” (source unknown).

Several developers, like John Carmack, have publicly announced a preference for the Xbox 360. But could that number be growing? The recent cancellation of Condemned for the PS3 seems to suggest as much…"

Tygerwoody
09-30-05, 08:54 PM
I dont believe it. PS3 will be fine. This is what we call "marketing".

Mr. Hunt
09-30-05, 08:56 PM
Yeah... Sony might be losing some... but I doubt it is as bad as they say... and I doubt Sony has much to worry about anyway... they have a huge fanbase (worldwide, whereas Xbox got screwed in Japan pretty hard).

I will wait and see.

LiquidX
09-30-05, 08:59 PM
I read some things on this and it seems that making games for the PS3 will be costly (estimates averaging 20M) along with hefty Sony royalty fees. Also it as already been said that Sony seems to have made it so its very hard to port games developed on the PS3 to other consoles. The 360 on the other hand is easy to dev for and MS doesnt have high royalty fees and has even waived it for some studios. That said I doubt Sony will see any type of mass exodusof devs or games. Also there was a rumor saying the opposite a few months back that alot of devs have dropped the 360 because the PS3 was more powerful.

Greg
10-01-05, 02:21 AM
... Also there was a rumor saying the opposite a few months back that alot of devs have dropped the 360 because the PS3 was more powerful.
I remember reading those news articles and laughed out loud. Developers publicly leaving one platform for another after reading the theoretical performance specs... Very amusing. If is smells like PR, it is, but I can assure you, after working in games for a very long time, even if it doesn't smell like PR, it still is.

msxyz
10-01-05, 02:41 AM
Yet, when the Saturn blew nobody saw it coming until the console on the market.

The signs are similar: costly hardware pushed on the market early, quite difficult to program (first multiprocessor console... err) the advent of an outsider (in this case Sony) with a good marketing strategy.

By the end of 2007 we will probably be able to see who will be the winner of this generation. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Xbox sales in the North America market to be stronger than the PS3

|MaguS|
10-01-05, 07:40 AM
I dout this is right since Sony at TGS05 announced over 100 japanese developers supporting the PS3... Sony has way too much of a market grasp for any developer/publisher to ignore right away. Even if they are afraid that the system will fail, they will release titles in the beginning and then pull out if they see sales going south.

aAv7
10-01-05, 07:57 AM
I personally think Sony will fall to # 2 in the race this gen. Too many negatives going against them. The main one is the rumored $799 they're charging for the system, that's a nice load of upgrades for my pc. Second, the dev kits are a pain in the ass to work with, the fee's are insane, and all the while xbox360 has much more developer friendly tools, is out a year ahead, at a much cheaper price, and m$ knows how to lure in the big guns to get the # 1 spot.

Nothing is forever, and yes, like saturn, this seems a bit sketchy.....it's like they say, if you dont learn from the past, your bound to repeat it. I think we have a case of sony saying " well it didnt work for sega, cause their SEGA, were SONY, we pwn " when in reality, it comes down to the users choice and developers support, both I think they'll be lacking this gen.

Will Sony go bankrupt and leave the console market because of the ps3, hell no. But I think for the first time since coming to the console market, they wont be the threat they were with ps1/ps2. Not at the insane price point for their system and the outrageous developers fee's.....you'd think we were talking about nintendo here..

|MaguS|
10-01-05, 08:04 AM
The $799 mark is wrong, where ever you heard that is just stupid. No Console now will release at that price, EVER! The Dev kits are not a pain in the ass, just because carmack says they are doesn't mean everyone else thinks they are. The Dev kits are alot easier to work with then the PS2s and look how well the PS2 did even against the Xbox which was easier...

Saturn failed because of its horrible architechture, it is far more difficult to develop for the saturn then it is for the PS3. Trying to access ALL 4 of the Saturns CPUs is a nightmare and its poor 2D performance is a joke. The only thing that system had going for it was its polygon pushing power but it just looked too rough always.

Sony isn't stupid and isn't willing to just hand over the top spot, they will fight hard to keep there spot. Remeber MS will never be able to outperform them in Japan.

Edge
10-01-05, 08:29 AM
Saturn failed because of its horrible architechture, it is far more difficult to develop for the saturn then it is for the PS3. Trying to access ALL 4 of the Saturns CPUs is a nightmare and its poor 2D performance is a joke. The only thing that system had going for it was its polygon pushing power but it just looked too rough always.
Isn't that a little backwards? The Saturn had GREAT 2d performance, it's the 3d stuff which was hard to get right. And unless I'm mistaken, didn't the Saturn not even render actual polygons?

|MaguS|
10-01-05, 08:38 AM
Saturns superior 2D performance was due to ram but not the CPUs. Thanks to the RAM Addon it was able to produce far better animations and Graphics but without it it was lackluster, take Castlevania Symphony of the Night. If you compare it to the PSX version it has horrible pixelization and a tons more slow down. Resident Evil is another example, the backgrounds had to be compressed more to be able to work on the Saturn and the models lacked the detail that the PSX version had.

As for pushing polygons, the Saturn was able to just fine (DOA was superior on it over the PSX version) but it had to run at a lower resolution and lacked alot of features to make 3D Rendering look any good (Compare Wipout on the Saturn and PSX).

msxyz
10-01-05, 10:27 AM
As far as I remeber the Saturn didn't use triangles for primitives but quads and this was one of the reason why it was hated by the developers. Some GFX were also more difficult to obtain (ie rendering of transparent polygons)

Programming was also more difficult but the machine had plenty of processing power and there were a few times were the Saturn really outshined the PSX (like DOA as Magus said, but also Quake and Tomb Raider)

gmontem
10-01-05, 10:54 AM
Saturns superior 2D performance was due to ram but not the CPUs.
The Saturn had dedicated processors for the 2D part. It was designed to equal or best Sega's System 32 arcade board which is considered by many arcade emulator devs, including R. Belmont, as one of the most powerful 2D arcade boards ever mdae.

|MaguS|
10-01-05, 11:22 AM
As far as I remeber the Saturn didn't use triangles for primitives but quads and this was one of the reason why it was hated by the developers. Some GFX were also more difficult to obtain (ie rendering of transparent polygons)

Programming was also more difficult but the machine had plenty of processing power and there were a few times were the Saturn really outshined the PSX (like DOA as Magus said, but also Quake and Tomb Raider)

Tomb Raider was not superior on the Saturn in my opinion, It had a slower draw in and suffered from a lower texture resolution. It also had a rougher look aswell.

Bad_Boy
10-01-05, 01:29 PM
The main one is the rumored $799 they're charging for the systemaaaaaaaaahahhahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahah a :jumping: :ORDER: :nana: :rofl :clap2: :udawg:





(foshiz)

Rakeesh
10-01-05, 01:41 PM
The $799 mark is wrong, where ever you heard that is just stupid. No Console now will release at that price, EVER!

It could. It has in the past.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html


Atari VCS launched in 1977 for $249.99 - $811.21 in 2005
NeoGeo launched in 1990 for $699.99 - $1041.12 in 2005
3DO Interactive Multiplayer launched in 1993 for $699.95 - $920.30 in 2005

Bad_Boy
10-01-05, 02:11 PM
lets see...

ps1: 299
ps2: 299
ps3: 799 ;)

...right.

ps one: 150
ps two: 150
ps three: 400 ;)

...right.

Ninja Prime
10-01-05, 02:24 PM
lets see...

ps1: 299
ps2: 299
ps3: 799 ;)

...right.

ps one: 150
ps two: 150
ps three: 400 ;)

...right.

... Except that sony execs themselves said it will be more expensive than any of their consoles in the past, even going as far as to say "It will be hard for the average family to afford" or some such.

|MaguS|
10-01-05, 08:31 PM
... Except that sony execs themselves said it will be more expensive than any of their consoles in the past, even going as far as to say "It will be hard for the average family to afford" or some such.

So wait.... we believe them when they talk about the price but not about its graphics capabilities... hmmm...

Mr. Hunt
10-01-05, 08:31 PM
So wait.... we believe them when they talk about the price but not about its graphics capabilities... hmmm...

DUH!

slick
10-01-05, 10:42 PM
So wait.... we believe them when they talk about the price but not about its graphics capabilities... hmmm...

That's because Sony has a reputation for over-hyping and not delivering. Kutaragi needs to go get demoted again.

Ninja Prime
10-02-05, 12:02 AM
So wait.... we believe them when they talk about the price but not about its graphics capabilities... hmmm...

That's moronic. You don't believe them when they "talk about its graphics capabilities" because they are just hyping their product. You believe them when they talk about the price like that because there is no reason to hype it costing a lot. Stop being such a fanboy and open your eyes FFS.

msxyz
10-02-05, 02:11 AM
799$ is insane and probably just pure wish on Xbox fanbois part.

I think that the price will be ~ 400$ just like the Xbox360 premium and slightly more than past generation products upon launch. I don't think anyone at Sony is so fool or arrogant to think that the general public will swallow anything above that price.

On the other side, the reported increse in licensing fees (can anyone confirm this?) might be a sign that Sony is trying to lower further the price of the hardware compensating through the software incomes.

Vagrant Zero
10-02-05, 02:20 AM
This reminds me of all the Nintendo fanboys who were so sure the PSP was gonna retail for $400. PS3 for $800?

I wish we all lived in a Vacuum, that way there'd be no air to carry the blithering of these deranged luncatics to my ears.

People who actually believe Sony will be dethroned when they have absolutely no competition in their domestic market need to be vented out the closest airlock.

toxikneedle
10-02-05, 10:03 AM
This reminds me of all the Nintendo fanboys who were so sure the PSP was gonna retail for $400. PS3 for $800?

I wish we all lived in a Vacuum, that way there'd be no air to carry the blithering of these deranged luncatics to my ears.

People who actually believe Sony will be dethroned when they have absolutely no competition in their domestic market need to be vented out the closest airlock.
Ahhh cmon nintendo fanboys are so funny to listen to. They bash everything and then tell you to play mario baseball instead.