Do the design decisions on one console effect the gaming on another console?
Will Microsoft's choices to not include HD-DVD or a hard drive, affect the end result or outcome of game development on the PS3. That is the question that I have. Obviously this is hypothetical and arguable until such time in the future that games start becoming more exclusive because of this fact or that there is a dominant winner between the 360 and the PS3. Just for clarity, I consider the Wii in a league of its own.
When
developing a Triple-A title, it needs to be made cross-platform
compatible. Generally this would mean PS3/360/PC. In developing and
porting, the lowest common denominator in terms of hardware support
is the 360. Since before the PS3 was released, it was common knowledge that the PS3 outperformed the 360 on paper. But now that both consoles are out, developers are starting to see more of the differences stand out.
According to an anonymous developer on Gamer.Blorge,
"Where the real problem stem is in the two system's processors. While Xbox games can be tweaked to move up to the PS3, the reverse is not always the case. Due to the PS3's advanced processor, games developed for the Sony backed platform sometimes can't be downgraded to the the 360's chip."
As if having a weaker processor wasn't bad enough, not everyone with a 360 will have a hard drive, but every PS3 and PC will have a harddrive. In addition when it comes to capacity of a game, the 360 and PC both support DVD as the standard, where as the PS3 stands out on Blu-ray. The type of medium I don't think is really the issue, I think it comes down to capacity. So lets estimate 50GBs for the Blu-ray and 9GBs for the DVD. This means that the DVD capacity is the limiting factor, but a closer look would reveal it's really the DVD capacity is the limiting factor because of the 360's lack of a harddrive.
With PC games, it's been normal for a game to span an install across multiple CDs. This would be justifiable for DVDs as well. So with that in mind, a game that would fit comfortably on Blu-ray, would still be able to be installed on a PC, through an installation spanning multiple DVDs to the harddrive. The 360 on the other hand does not have that option. The game would have to seriously be re-written to support disc swapping, which I feel is not worth the breaking up of the gaming experience (depending on the game), and not worth the additional effort for the port. So again, I see the 360 being the lowest common denominator between the 3 platforms because of its primary use of DVD and the lack of a harddrive.
Even on a game scheduled for release in less than a month the lack of what could be on the 360 is rearing its ugly head. The Creative Director of Assassin's Creed shared some thoughts with GamersGlobal on the issues coming up when developing games to be cross-platform compatible:
"It's all being done in parallel. On all versions, AI and 3D and animations are the same, so it's not really difficult to port the game to PS3 and PC. The tougher part - maybe I'm saying too much here, but who cares? - is the storage device. We are talking about DVD on Xbox 360 and PC versus Blu-ray on PS3 here, 8 GB versus 50 GB. That's the real difference."
So this means that a game needs to be coded without a harddrive in mind, and that it must fit entirely on one DVD. For short term exclusive titles that launch on the 360, this means that the PC and PS3 are easily fair game for porting after the exclusivity period ends on the 360. One could assume that as the games progress into the future, demanding more capacity and hardware that the ability to port from PC or the PS3 to the 360 will become less and less of a viable option or come with more and more sacrifice of the game experience.
Since PC's and the PS3 are on par or have greater capabilities than the 360, this is almost a non-issue when developing a game purely for the 360 that turns out to be more popular than anticipated and then ported to the other platforms. It becomes an issue when a game is developed primarily for the PS3, as an example, that surpasses predicted interest, that leads the business to push for a port to the 360. Porting a game to a lesser platform typically leads to degradation of the gaming experience. In the case where you already own the game on the PS3, then you could probably care less for the 360 users that have to suffer/deal with the weaker ported version of the game.
This same issue was commonly seen across the PS2 and Xbox. For cross-platform games, the Xbox always had an obvious edge over the PS2. For those of us that only had a PS2, it was a bummer to see beautiful Xbox screenshots, then look at the struggling PS2 screen shots, that would clearly show how aged the PS2 had become. At the time of this article, this is less prevalent between the 360 and the PS3, but I don't doubt that there will be a time that this will more noticeable between the two consoles, with the PS3 being the favored console.
I don't have any problem with the degraded content on ports, that's been going on since the dawn of gaming. What I have a problem with is when a game has to drop features or make compromises due to the limiting factor of the weakest link, that of the 360. With a young console this is less of an issue, it becomes more of an issue during the middle of the lifespan of the leading console. Where developers are apt enough to stretch the legs of any given console to make it work the way it was intended and at an acceptable level, while continuously raising the bar from the previous release.
When planning a known triple-a title, when it is known that there is obvious benefit to the game experience, gameplay, visual quality, amount of content,... on the leading console, but the decisions is made to force the game to be cross platform. In essence, changing the three layer wedding cake that would've been to a molded sheet cake. Thus becoming cross-platform compatible without changing the way the game plays between each port.
On GameDaily BIZ, the Creative VP of Rockstar, Dan Houser has also confirms that that bringing GTA to the Xbox 360 is is a hurdle they haven't yet decided how to overcome, due to the limitations of the 360 compared to that of the PS3.
A hypothetical example, is if they could create a game such as GTA VIII that would span the entire United States, UK, and Japan, with the same level of detail and quality that can be seen from google streets. All mapped perfectly in rich detail. Complete with accurate in game scaled travel time and distances. Yet due to limitations of a platform that cannot store to a harddrive, and that must fit on a 9GB disc, that the 3 country game becomes another 3-city game...NY, London, and Tokyo... Knowing what could've been, and getting the latter, merely to support the lesser platform, would clearly hurt the game, by keeping it from growing into the next-gen system.
Would this really happen? Or would they fork the game development, and make a 3-city game for the 360 and the full blown countries for the PS3? I can't say, but I can see money grubbing publishers forcing developers to make cross-platform games to ensure the highest possible return on their investment of a game.
Although it is still too early to truly see an affect on the quality of the next-gen gaming experience due to Microsoft's short-sighted decision to not include a Harddrive and HD-DVD in all their 360's I am not in doubt, that this may become more noticeable as developers mature in their ability to develop cross-platform titles.
When we start seeing more cross-platform titles that are...
According to an anonymous developer on Gamer.Blorge,
"Where the real problem stem is in the two system's processors. While Xbox games can be tweaked to move up to the PS3, the reverse is not always the case. Due to the PS3's advanced processor, games developed for the Sony backed platform sometimes can't be downgraded to the the 360's chip."
As if having a weaker processor wasn't bad enough, not everyone with a 360 will have a hard drive, but every PS3 and PC will have a harddrive. In addition when it comes to capacity of a game, the 360 and PC both support DVD as the standard, where as the PS3 stands out on Blu-ray. The type of medium I don't think is really the issue, I think it comes down to capacity. So lets estimate 50GBs for the Blu-ray and 9GBs for the DVD. This means that the DVD capacity is the limiting factor, but a closer look would reveal it's really the DVD capacity is the limiting factor because of the 360's lack of a harddrive.
With PC games, it's been normal for a game to span an install across multiple CDs. This would be justifiable for DVDs as well. So with that in mind, a game that would fit comfortably on Blu-ray, would still be able to be installed on a PC, through an installation spanning multiple DVDs to the harddrive. The 360 on the other hand does not have that option. The game would have to seriously be re-written to support disc swapping, which I feel is not worth the breaking up of the gaming experience (depending on the game), and not worth the additional effort for the port. So again, I see the 360 being the lowest common denominator between the 3 platforms because of its primary use of DVD and the lack of a harddrive.
Even on a game scheduled for release in less than a month the lack of what could be on the 360 is rearing its ugly head. The Creative Director of Assassin's Creed shared some thoughts with GamersGlobal on the issues coming up when developing games to be cross-platform compatible:
"It's all being done in parallel. On all versions, AI and 3D and animations are the same, so it's not really difficult to port the game to PS3 and PC. The tougher part - maybe I'm saying too much here, but who cares? - is the storage device. We are talking about DVD on Xbox 360 and PC versus Blu-ray on PS3 here, 8 GB versus 50 GB. That's the real difference."
So this means that a game needs to be coded without a harddrive in mind, and that it must fit entirely on one DVD. For short term exclusive titles that launch on the 360, this means that the PC and PS3 are easily fair game for porting after the exclusivity period ends on the 360. One could assume that as the games progress into the future, demanding more capacity and hardware that the ability to port from PC or the PS3 to the 360 will become less and less of a viable option or come with more and more sacrifice of the game experience.
Since PC's and the PS3 are on par or have greater capabilities than the 360, this is almost a non-issue when developing a game purely for the 360 that turns out to be more popular than anticipated and then ported to the other platforms. It becomes an issue when a game is developed primarily for the PS3, as an example, that surpasses predicted interest, that leads the business to push for a port to the 360. Porting a game to a lesser platform typically leads to degradation of the gaming experience. In the case where you already own the game on the PS3, then you could probably care less for the 360 users that have to suffer/deal with the weaker ported version of the game.
This same issue was commonly seen across the PS2 and Xbox. For cross-platform games, the Xbox always had an obvious edge over the PS2. For those of us that only had a PS2, it was a bummer to see beautiful Xbox screenshots, then look at the struggling PS2 screen shots, that would clearly show how aged the PS2 had become. At the time of this article, this is less prevalent between the 360 and the PS3, but I don't doubt that there will be a time that this will more noticeable between the two consoles, with the PS3 being the favored console.
I don't have any problem with the degraded content on ports, that's been going on since the dawn of gaming. What I have a problem with is when a game has to drop features or make compromises due to the limiting factor of the weakest link, that of the 360. With a young console this is less of an issue, it becomes more of an issue during the middle of the lifespan of the leading console. Where developers are apt enough to stretch the legs of any given console to make it work the way it was intended and at an acceptable level, while continuously raising the bar from the previous release.
When planning a known triple-a title, when it is known that there is obvious benefit to the game experience, gameplay, visual quality, amount of content,... on the leading console, but the decisions is made to force the game to be cross platform. In essence, changing the three layer wedding cake that would've been to a molded sheet cake. Thus becoming cross-platform compatible without changing the way the game plays between each port.
On GameDaily BIZ, the Creative VP of Rockstar, Dan Houser has also confirms that that bringing GTA to the Xbox 360 is is a hurdle they haven't yet decided how to overcome, due to the limitations of the 360 compared to that of the PS3.
A hypothetical example, is if they could create a game such as GTA VIII that would span the entire United States, UK, and Japan, with the same level of detail and quality that can be seen from google streets. All mapped perfectly in rich detail. Complete with accurate in game scaled travel time and distances. Yet due to limitations of a platform that cannot store to a harddrive, and that must fit on a 9GB disc, that the 3 country game becomes another 3-city game...NY, London, and Tokyo... Knowing what could've been, and getting the latter, merely to support the lesser platform, would clearly hurt the game, by keeping it from growing into the next-gen system.
Would this really happen? Or would they fork the game development, and make a 3-city game for the 360 and the full blown countries for the PS3? I can't say, but I can see money grubbing publishers forcing developers to make cross-platform games to ensure the highest possible return on their investment of a game.
Although it is still too early to truly see an affect on the quality of the next-gen gaming experience due to Microsoft's short-sighted decision to not include a Harddrive and HD-DVD in all their 360's I am not in doubt, that this may become more noticeable as developers mature in their ability to develop cross-platform titles.
When we start seeing more cross-platform titles that are...
- Feature rich on one system and lacking on the other.
- Visually richer and more compared to the other.
- Varied gameplay and level design between each other.
- Given external funds to be made/ported to the other platform
- Exclusive titles on games that were previously cross-platform, when not binded by contract to a specific platform.
- When all the game developers at once cried out in aguish against the weakness of one console
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Do the design decisions on one console effect the gaming on another console?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.gamesensei.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9
Leave a comment