PS3 News: Remedy Explains Decision To Make Alan Wake Exclusive - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Remedy Explains Decision To Make Alan Wake Exclusive

We call it "the game PS3 owners wish they had" and it remains one of the most engaging, innovative experiences of the generation in our eyes.

So why didn't Alan Wake come to Sony's console? Well, obviously, it's because Remedy signed an exclusivity deal with Microsoft, and the developer now admits that move was a "business risk." On the other hand, it eliminated the "technical headaches" that would go along with producing the game for both platforms; if you didn't know, the game was originally intended to come to the PS3, 360 and PC. But Remedy went with Microsoft's offer; sure, it reduces the number of potential consumers, but Remedy CTO told the crowd at GDC earlier this month that such a move "reigned in the scope of a wildly ambitious project."

"Our strategy was one of focus. That's actually a really core Remedy element, well if you forget the ambitious goals we had. We needed to be top notch in some areas, but we knew we couldn't do everything better than some developers out there. For example, this meant there was no multiplayer. That wasn't in our core set of skills and it would have been a huge effort.

We also took the approach to license middleware that made sense, even when we didn't end up using it all for one reason or another. And then, the big deal - to go with Microsoft and take one big technological effort, the PS3, out of the equation. That then changed the technology risk to a business risk - but that's a subject for a different talk altogether..."

Maki went on to talk about their engine selection for Alan Wake (they passed on the Unreal Engine, by the way), and it's clear they're quite satisfied with their decision. As for a sequel, that is apparently in the works and no, PS3 owners shouldn't expect it. But wait...I have more to say on this subject...

Tags: alan wake, microsoft, remedy, alan wake ps3

3/25/2011 9:12:20 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (66 posts)

Jawknee
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 9:41:42 PM
Reply

They picked the wrong platform.

Agree with this comment 24 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

CrusaderForever
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 12:41:02 AM

Amen brother

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:19:39 AM

Agreed.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 9:43:22 PM
Reply

Either they took a bath on the original and don't care about it, or Microsoft wrote a check large enough to compensate them handsomely. No one produces a game that sells as poorly as Alan Wake did on 360 and then makes a sequel on the same unfriendly (the the genre) platform, unless they are being paid to.

Agree with this comment 17 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

GuyverLT
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:01:26 PM

It's sad cause it's a really great game even for the poor sales, so yeah I agree they have to be getting paid allot of money if they don't intend to go Multi-Plat this time around.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:10:25 PM

Alan Wake has actually now sold in excess of a million copies. It may not be as good as something like Heavy Rain, but it has been a moderate success.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:21:30 PM

Wow! A million seller eh? That's far more than I had heard anywhere. I'll retract what I said about a bath, but stand by the questioning of making a sequel on a platform that still offered lack luster sales.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:25:51 PM

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/13817/alan-wake/

I know it's not the best source, but it's still information, right?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:35:37 PM

Hold on, there's a nearly 400,000 copy shortfall between the week 10 global numbers given, and the supposed lifetime sales. We're supposed to believe that 400,000 more copies sold beyond week 10? Weeks 26-28 see a sustained surge in sales of the game in the US, any idea what happened then? Was the game offered at a lower price, or bundled with a console?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 12:24:31 AM

400,000 copies in 34 weeks is hardly outside the realm of possibility, especially for a title that a lot of people would have been sleeping on, considering that it was untried. As for the bump in sales later on that timeline, it's a wonder... maybe a price drop?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 2:35:05 AM

Lawless,

VGcharts = big no no. Most un-reliable source you could of found :)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 3:21:07 AM

I know, but there has to be some truth to it... Doesn't there?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 9:58:12 PM
Reply

So basically, they took up Microsoft's offer because they thought that the PS3 was too difficult to program for? They wanted to eradicate that technological risk rather than pushing themselves to make it work? Siding with M$ was a business risk, when we all know how desperate they are for exclusivity, and the lengths that they will go to get it ($50 million for GTA:EFLC). What a joke.

On the other hand, I applaud their desire for focus. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's devs biting of more than they can chew and adding in tons of optional content at the expense of the core gameplay.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:23:52 PM

If there's one thing that annoys me it's companies specifically going out to buy game exclusivity from third party developers - especially for established franchises that would have to switch platform to make the exclusivity happen.

I don't have a problem with a console maker offering technical assistance and such, or even a publishing partnership with good terms, but a check up front for services rendered makes the developer/publisher signing such exclusivity little more than a paid whore.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 11:30:31 PM

@highlander. Why should it matter if a company offers better terms, tech support or other compensation? Extra compensation is the overwhelming reason companies go exclusive in any industry. The developer who takes the exclusive deal is doing what they think is best for their business.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 3:06:21 AM

Because winning over loyalty by offering support whether the developer stays exclusive or not shows more trust in the developer than paying them a ton of money to be exclusive. I'd rather be someone's friend than their slave. Paid exclusivity locks a developer in, and they can't go beyond the limits of their exclusivity. A third party developer with a good relationship with Sony can get the same support as other Sony devs, without worrying about being strong-armed into exclusivity. If the dev chooses out of loyalty to remain exclusive, I'm sure that their loyalty is rewarded with a closer relationship, but if they do not remain exclusive, they continue to receive the same support.

Let's say you're a third party developer like Level 5 working on a new JRPG, and you choose to develope it for PS3. If you ask Sony for any help, they'll bend over backwards to give it to you. If you decide to also develop for the 360, Sony will still help you with your PS3 implementation. On the other hand let's say your working for Turncoats Enix, a long time JRPG developer fallen on hard times and you sign an exclusivity deal with Microsoft. Now there's no chance of developing those exclusive games for the PS3 platform, because your contract prevents you. Not only that, but your close relationship with Sony is disrupted because you're no longer developing for their platform. Then when you do develop for them, and agree to make something exclusive (without being paid to), Sony once again offers their usual help, and instead of accepting it and being a friend again you slap the hand back and run off the that other company that paid you for those other games so that they can have the supposedly exclusive game as well.

See, there is a difference, one way is about developing a business relationship, the other is about filling a bank account. It's the long term gain (closer relationships with console makers) vs short term gains (money in the bank). I personally prefer long term gains, but then I despise short termism and investment horizons measurable in weeks.

Last edited by Highlander on 3/26/2011 3:07:43 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuyverLT
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 9:58:58 PM
Reply

I played it was pretty damn creepy at times & I throughly enjoyed it *SIGH* although it's pretty much the only game I've been playing on my 360 lately.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:05:27 PM
Reply

That was a risk that did NOT pay off. Very foolish move that could have been avoided because Sony would have been happy to help them work with the PS3 like the big boys can.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

nilos95
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 3:36:16 AM

Sure it didn't pay off but back then PS3 was considered a beast to develop for and was pretty new while 360 had a userbase. I think that developing it for PS3 would pay off since even Heavy Rain did well(Alan Wake s more mainstream gameplay-wise) but at the very least, they shouldn't have dropped the PC version.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 4:41:27 AM

but come on world, god forbid third party devs make a videogame that is on par or better than the 360 version...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:47:48 PM
Reply

I watched several video's for this game and I didn't see anything that made me wish it was on ps3. It looked like a guy always wondering down a hallway styled level with nothing but a flash light, which apparently the zombies/monsters are afraid of.

The graphics looked sub-par and I just never saw anything that would explain why people think it is good.

Granted I haven't played it, but if it had been on ps3, I don't think I would have played it anyway. I watched a lot of gameplay vids and nothing ever made me feel even remotely interested.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 10:50:55 PM
Reply

I can't say that it's a foolish move, the video game industry is business and like he said, it was a business risk.
I think Free Radical has been a fine example of what happens when your game can't sell, especially when the publisher doesn't give you any financial support for it.

If I were in their shoes and a free check comes in I'd take it too.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 4:49:41 AM

yeah but what if that check wasnt free per say, what if it came with a dirty hand shake and an evil grin that made you think "holy sh*t what the f*ck did i just do?"

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kai200X
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 11:06:50 PM
Reply

Good luck with that Remedy LMAO

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kiryu
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 11:07:43 PM
Reply

There is a reason for making games PS3 Exclusives .There is no real reason for making games 360 exclusive.

Last edited by Kiryu on 3/25/2011 11:08:06 PM

Agree with this comment 8 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 11:46:41 PM

Especially a game that has zero multiplayer.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:21:45 AM

Indeed.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LittleBigMidget
Friday, March 25, 2011 @ 11:14:42 PM
Reply

Fanboy much?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 12:11:22 AM
Reply

I call BS on Remedy...You saw the Brinks truck in your driveway & MS had to lift your head out your own drool to in order to keep you from completely drowning in your pool of self-spittle.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 1:00:13 AM
Reply

okay, so we know the ps3 is harder to program for. they did not want that hassle. sorry, can't say i blame them. we see multplat games suffer all the time on the ps3 with lower resolutions, jaggies, and poor framerates. gta, rdr, crysis 2, ac2, acb, bayo, re5, bioshock 1and2, fear, cod series...the list goes on and on. all those games look better on the 360. as a ps3 owner, i have become conditioned to know that if is a multiplat game it will be worse on my platform of choice.

apparently, the ps3 is tough to program on using middleware. the unreal engine seems to get much better results on the 360. even the cryengine performed better on the 360.

i would like to play alan wake on my ps3, but the 1st game sold over 1 million on the 360, so it did not flop as bad as many have made it out to be. kz3 hasn't even sold 1 million copies yet, and that's triple a exclusive. i guess we are usd to those slow sales on ps3 exclusives. alan wake did perform poorly compared to other xbox exclusives,

like i said it would be great to see alan wake go to a wider audience, but if these guys don't think they have what it takes to deal with the ps3, so be it. ms published their 1st game, so it makes sense that they would have some loyalty to them.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 3:12:34 AM

No, actually, we know nothing of the sort. The developers that have spent the time and effort learning the platform have no problems using it to great effect. Because it has specialized hardware to accelerate certain kinds of operation you have to actually think about how to use it and learn how to optimize for it. You can't just write your code and drop it into a compiler - like you can on the 360. It's not so much that it's harder, it simply doesn't reward lazy developers.

However after 4 years of development experience the only people still complaining about the 'hard to develop for PS3' thing are the same lazy gits who signed up with MS in the early days and don't have the courage of their convictions to say "we were wrong". Heck, even Gabe Newell of Valve finally relented, and has more recently been quite upbeat about the PS3.

Stop pedaling the myth that the PS3 is hard to develop for. It's a more in depth platform to learn, but that doesn't make it harder to develop for - once learned. Again, after more than 4 years, are we still accepting excuses from developers too lazy to learn?

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 3:30:22 AM

Excelsior, it's hardly fair to compare the sales of Alan Wake and KZ3 for the simple reason that one has been out for the better part of a year, while the other has been out for a month. As I wrote above, it is simply laziness on the part of Remedy. They thought that the PS3 would be difficult to develop for, so they took the easy way out and went exclusively to Microsoft without even trying.

I have a lot more respect for someone who will try something that they consider difficult, than someone who chooses to take an easier option. Why? Because at the end of it, success or failure, they will be better for having tried.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 6:50:21 AM

@Highlander I agree.

@Lawless I also agree with you as well, i don't like rewarding developers who don't try. How are you going to strive to be better if you always take the easy way out of things in life? I don't get it.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 10:43:27 AM

Of course it's hard to develop on PS3, just look into KZ3 single player campain.

GG efforts went into making the game look good that they forgot (shall I say ran out of time?)to make a normal running single player campain.

If a first party studio strugles to come up with content in a AAA game title,in a given time frame, how do you think a third party developer is going to fare?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 2:48:42 PM

I don't think they forgot or ran out of time, it's standard fps fare to make a very short campaign and those short campaigns are only getting shorter everywhere.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 5:15:38 PM

KZ3 was short but it was a lot more fun to play and to look at then 99.99% of the shooters out on the market.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 6:10:09 PM

No offense to the 2 people who down voted me for saying that the PS3 isn't hard to develop for, but you don't know what you're talking about. Any decent programmer or developer will tell you that the difficulty in programming anything is not related to the platform it's related to what is being programmed, the complexity of that work. Once you learn a platform it's as easy or hard as the next one, the task is what matters. But hey, you go ahead and perpetuate the myth that the PS3 is too hard for people to work with, and I'll go on playing my SP3 exclusives that prove that to be the lie that it is.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 6:26:37 PM

correction:

"and I'll go on playing my SP3 exclusives that prove that to be the lie that it is."

should read

"and I'll go on playing my PS3 exclusives that prove that to be the lie that it is."

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 4:54:38 PM

I'm not going to say you're wrong Highlander, because obviously it's possible to create really great-looking games on the PS3, and that the hardware itself is actually much more advanced and can do more than the 360 if used properly, problem is that 'used properly' part, which apparently a lot of developers are unable (or unwilling) to do, be it due to lack of effort or time... But when it all comes down to it, being different can often be the same thing as being more difficult, especially for those people used to the 'other way', aka the xbox360/PC way, which is why a lot of multiplatform games suffer on the PS3.

In the end Sony made a mistake when designing the PS3, assuming all third party developers would be willing to spend the extra time to make the PS3 version as good or better than the 360/PC versions. They could have easily put a slightly better graphics card and a little bit more memory on the PS3 and none of this would have ever happened, that's too bad...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JonahFalcon
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 1:04:24 AM
Reply

Alan Wake is a great game, but I've never found myself shedding tears because a game was on one platform and not another.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

CrusaderForever
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 1:05:24 AM
Reply

It's important that we all realize that they didn't go multiplat because they knew they weren't going to be able to make a good port to the PS3. I am glad they didn't. It would have probably been terrible. Nothing worse than getting a game you really want but it then chugs along like a slide show and has terrible control. If they get some new PS3 talent in house and know they can produce an exceptional version of AW and AW2 it would be a D1P for me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 5:12:50 AM

i agree with that 100% developer after developer has stated the unique architicture of the ps3 is a challenge. we witness it in the poor ports we have seen. yet, that's just a myth about the ps3 being difficult? i don't think so.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 7:37:01 AM

@Excelsior1

FF13 for example seems to be the better version because it was developed for the PS3 and then ported to 360. And look what happened to the 360 version? Same goes if the game was developed specifically for the 360 then ported to the PS3 the same things would happen on the PS3. If developers and the company helped we wouldn't have problems like this.

Taking the easy way out shouldn't be rewarded in this industry, people who work hard and willing to learn should be very successful in doing so, but people would rather have quantity than quality.

Technology changes you can't always use the same technique all the time, you have to learn the program as it gets harder or you will not know what it's capable of. There is other multiplatform games that look good and play better on PS3 than 360. Same for 360 than PS3.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 3/26/2011 7:37:18 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 4:09:16 AM
Reply

If they bring the second one PS3 it will no doubt be a port.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 5:08:11 AM
Reply

@highlander

it's more than a myth. many developers have said it. all those games i cited still look better on the 360. apparently the use of certain middleware software doesn't work so well on the ps3. a lot of 3rd party developers don't even use the spus for whatever reason. call it laziness, or maybe it's a business decision to not put the man hours into it. that's a business decision, that remedy is citing. if it were so easy to tap the power of the ps3 then we must be witnessing the greatest conspiracy in the world. countless multiplat games that don't measure up.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/26/2011 5:16:14 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 8:09:24 AM
Reply

hope they do another alan wake game, but a prequel this time.
show us the events leading up to the game, show us how the darkness originated, show us how the lady of light lost her marbles!
thats one thing allot of games are seriously lacking these days!
your thrown into a situation without it being explained why, or any background history.
homefront for example, your dropped into the middle of a war.
why?
why are the koreans taking over the country?
what happened to the US army?
your walking the streets and civilians are getting executed on the spot.
what the hell happened to the soldiers!?
you dont feel like a soldier sent out to fight a war, you feel like a soldier sent out to cleanup after the war!
you feel like youve arrived at the end, what the hell happened here?
the only reason why ME2 has such a good story, and won so many awards is not because its plot is good, its crap and cliche, how many times has the world being overtaken by aliens been done?
its won all those awards because its the only game out there that has some substance behind it!
some history!
ME is the only game ive ever played that actually feels real, it feels like you could hop on a ship tomorrow and find Sheppard and his shenanigans!
storys in games are seriously lacking, but the history behind the game is even more lacking!
to have a unique story is one thing, but to really escalate it and take it to the next level you need a little history!
like KZ3, i thought it actually had a decent story.
but like everything else, theres just no substance, no history!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 8:28:34 AM

that is one of your best posts blankline. maybe the reason me feels so real is the time you spend with the game developing relationships that fill out the story. it's kind of hard to do that in a 5hr game like kz3, or homefront.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 4:31:57 PM

oops, didn't mean to post here.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/26/2011 4:34:29 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lairfan
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 3:58:45 PM

So basically you're asking for every game to offer up exposition every other dialogue just so you can know exactly what happened before? I believe the idea most of the time is that you use your own damn imagination, THINK about it, and you'll realize what happened.

For instance, look at Homefront. Why do we need a reason for the Koreans to invade? They invaded because they thought the US was a threat. If you paid any attention to the news you would know that they actually do think that. As for our army being gone, it was pretty conclusive that they kicked our asses, and I don't want to be exposited to for 20 hours about how the army got its ass kicked.

As for Mass Effect 2, the game's story is pretty good, but I gotta say that it has WAY too much exposition. And judging by how you think the game is a masterpiece of having "history" (whilst saying the story is cliche because its about an alien invasion, even though that's not really what its about), I can tell that you really don't know what a good plot is. Good day sir.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 8:23:27 AM
Reply

even kaz himself has been qouted stating that it is hard to program for in an opm article. he goes on to say that while many view at as negative thing he sees at as a positive giving the platform more longevity. that may be true, but what's the use of this powerful platform if so few can really tap its full potential? i think it's a great system, but i just wish it was better at 3rd party games. i don't like the resolution hits, jaggies, and chugging framerates we see in a lot of mutiplat games. i think the poor multiplats have really hurt the ps3, sony has said they have learned their lesson, and are consulting developers on future systems. that's a good thing.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 9:20:03 AM

It's good and it isn't good. Why make it so you can tap the potential day one when you can add other technology into it and challenge the system to output unreal graphics and other possibilities that it can make.

I can understand to make it open for mutliplatform developers, but we don't make any advances in society if we don't push the technology and that's what Sony is doing.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 9:50:06 AM

your never going to tap a systems power fully on day one.
sony made a massive mistake on making the ps3 so difficult to program for.
code can always be optimized, tools can always be shrunk, new tools can become available, new methods can become available.
i remember reading a article just before starwars TFU2 released saying they found a new way to have a game running in 60FPS 4xAA with the performance hit of the game running in 30FPS 2xAA.
or like what crytek have done, everyone else does 3D by creating 2 separate images but crytek create one and reuse it which is why 3D only has less then a 2% performance hit when other games see the FPS cut and normally resolution cut in half!

thats the whole reason why we keep getting these half assed ports!
developers can either spend millions on new staff, or re training staff.
or spend that cash on making a new game, which they will get there money back and then some!
spend millions and get nothing back.
or spend millions and get it back, plus profit!
which one would you choose?
sure, training new staff will make it easier for future projects.
but whos to say sony wont go out and create a new architecture for the next systems, thus making said training void?
put your money in a basket your not sure your going to get back.
or put your money in a basket you know you will get back, plus hopefully a good profit!
i know which one i would choose!

its like putting a jar of money on the top shelf of a cupboard, and everyone who lives in the house or even close to the house is a midget!
whats the point of having it, if it will rarely be used?
look at the 360, its so much easier to program for but does that mean we saw everything it was capable on launch?
of course not!
year in year out just like the ps3 we have seen massive improvements, and we will continue to see massive improvements till the system is retired!


Last edited by ___________ on 3/26/2011 9:52:42 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 10:16:04 AM

Sony made a mistake? I don't think so, it's showing what it's capable of and i am glad they are showing new ways to improve in the industry, why use the same technology when you can improve it by introducing new technology to it instead of keeping the same thing and only gaining a certain amount of improvement.

You don't make advances using the same technology and techniques you have to make new technology and create new techniques to forward innovation.

And besides Sony stated they would help anyone with the development of the game, but they aren't taking that offer Sony provides. Others who have dived into the platform say it isn't really that hard as people seem to think.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 10:58:42 AM

listen, your qoute of its good and it isn't is a good one. what sony could have done better is making sure their platform could deliver multiplat games that looked just as good on its system, while maintaining the upside. we still rarely see multiplat games that look as good. its gotten better, but all those games i cited earlier still look better on the 360 becuase apparently developers don't want to put the man hours into the ps3 version. i just am fed up with always having the inferior multi plat games.

sony offers help. well, a lot of multiplat developers use middleware like the unreal engine. that engine is notorious for favoring the 360 so all the help in world isn't going to change that. maybe if sony had its own engine to give to devlopers. i don't know. even the cryengine came out better on the 360. even when the ps3 is the lead platform the 360 version comes out just as good. it's a conspiracy, i know.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 11:56:25 AM

I understand what you mean, but i see it as trying to innovate on the technology instead of using the same techniques that's what i mean by It's good and it isn't.

And i know what you are talking about i am sure they can do something to help out, we always don't get a bad port i will play it as long as it plays good, i don't care much about graphics that much, sometimes i do sometimes i don't.

It goes both ways when a console is lead platform, on either side it will have a problem. They could easily use the PS3 version first and optimize it a bit and port it to the 360 and it will work completely fine and look just as good and we wouldn't have any problems we do now. I believe they did that to a game used the PS3 first and then ported it to the 360 and it was fine.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 3/26/2011 11:57:08 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 12:48:40 PM

yes, they did that with vanquish, and it seemed pretty even with the 360 version. way better than bayo. i still think sony made a mistake with the ps3. we are 5 yrs in, and still see uneven multiplats. that's forever.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 12:59:27 PM

I agree, but not on the PS3 was a mistake part though. I'm sure they can do something to make it easier on the developers I'm not entirely sure on how those things work because i don't work for them nor are a developer.

Who knows maybe down the road they can do something to the PS3 to make it easier. And maybe with a new system they will have something similar to the PS3's architecture but it's easier to access, I'm not sure we don't know exactly yet and how the technology will be used.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 3/26/2011 1:02:02 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 6:20:03 PM

What Kaz said is that it's not easy to extract the complete performance out of the system immediately. What he said was that you have to put some effort into learning the platform. Gee, imagine that, learning about the high performance system you're about to program. How odd. The 360 is easier to learn because you don't need to learn it to work with it. That's not the same as saying it's easier to develop for. If you take two sets of equally skilled developers who are familiar with each platform they will each produce a great game for the specific platform just as easily as the other.

I'm so sick of people who think that because you have to actually learn and study, that means it's hard. The biggest 'problem' for developers on the PS3 is not learning the platform, it's learning to re-think your approach to best use the SPU array. It's the same problem that software engineers faced going to high performance super computers from conventional mainframes. You have to think in terms of running things in parallel and how you can change the process to be data centric instead of code centric so that you can stram data through the processor instead of a more conventional mix of instructions and Data. The Cell BE - Broadband Engine is all about streaming data into and out of the processor. The SPUs are designed to operate in parallel or sequentially on streams of data and the whole thing operates most efficiently when you design your application to use that functionality as much as possible.

But, that is the thing that I guess is difficult, you have to think about your application, about your process, and about the platform. You can't just start coding off the top of your head and let the compiler take care of the detail. It's not easier or harder, it's about the level of detail you go to in your work and the quality of that work.

This kind of mentality that something is hard because you have to learn it is what is wrong with so many things today. Kids coming out of school haven't got a clue how things work any more, they just know that the JRE does this or that, they don't care how the underlying runtime handles it, or how it abstracts it to hardware, or how the hardware does it. They consider that too hard - and *they* are the ones with the technical qualifications.

The biggest mistake made here is the 360. I have no problem with MS making the dev environment easy on the developers, but the platform itself has no gas beyond what the tools let you do. The mistake being that no matter how well someone knows the platform, they really can't do anything better with it than someone else can.

I want developers to have to learn and put in effort, I want their technical creativity to matter as much as anything else does. I want them to have to work at finding ways to use the hardware better. It makes them better developers and makes better games.

The biggest mistake here is thinking that something is easier if you don't have to learn it. Some would argue that if something doesn't require effort to learn, it's not worth learning.
</rant>

Last edited by Highlander on 3/26/2011 6:25:41 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 6:59:59 PM

great post. i don't disagree with anything you have to say. developers not using the spus sounds like what you getting at.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 7:46:29 PM

Indeed. Sorry for ranting. This is a sore subject for me because as a bit of a techie and having been a software developer (not games), I know that there are plenty of developers who do nothing to investigate the capabilities of the platform they work with. They produce terribly lazy code. There are also some really talented developers who spend time learning about the platform and produce much more elegant solutions that work better. The end result is the same of course, but the lazy coders always used to complain that it was too hard to develop. It wasn't, they were simply too lazy to learn. This kind of thing has been endemic on the PC for more than a decade now. Hardware has far outstripped software in terms of the quality of design. Software now relies on the hardware for performance instead of looking for more efficient ways to code something, developers simply code and lean on the multi-threading and additional hardware to bail them out.

On the 360/PS3 thing. The main PPC core in the Cell is the same as the three cores in the 360. the 360 simply has 3 instead of 1. Other than that they are nearly identical. The GPU in the PS3 is an older nVidia design that is familiar to many developers, and the PS3 dev system uses many open standards too. So there is no real excuse for the majority of the complaints. It does come down to the use of the SPUs. The thing is, for the developer these are essentially 6 identical CPUs that are interconnected by a very high speed bus. They are optimized for floating point but are in fact RISC processors in their own right. If I as a developer lack sufficient imagination to find a use for 6 3.2GHz processors connected to a very high speed bus, then no one should believe my excuses when I say it's too hard, the real problem is that the developer hasn't got the imagination to use an incredible resource.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Sunday, March 27, 2011 @ 7:44:50 AM

thats the problem though, as i said before why spend the money and time training staff or buying new staff on the new architecture when you could be spending that time and money making a new game?
the ps3 was a mistake, sony did not learn a thing from the ps2!
developers whined for every minute the system was out because it was so different, so they go and do the same with the ps3!
if your paying your staff x bucks a hour, are you going to want them to create a new game so you can get some of your cash back.
or are you going to ask then to spend the time and money on learning new architecture, or finding and purchasing staff already capable of doing so?
the only reason why valve have not been on board with the ps3 is because they dont want to go and spend time and money hiring new staff, that time and money could be put to finally finishing half life 2 epp 3!
but they saw the popularity of the console, and want a piece of the pie so they had no choice but to do so.
if sony left the ps3 as standard PC architecture, then they would of not created this mess for everyone!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:24:46 AM

Mr Cowherd,

It's comments like this that make me extraordinarily glad that people like YOU do not work for Sony's hardware design team.

Had Sony designed the PS3 using PC technology, it would long ago have become utterly obsolete and unfit for purpose. The design of the PS3 is what it is to pack as much raw power under the hood as possible and let the developers figure out how best to use that. That means that from the get go, it's capable of great things, but as time passes and people learn the architecture greater things result. Using a vanilla architecture like the PC simply dooms any console to immediate obsolescence from the day before it launches, just like every other commodity priced PC in existence.

The fact that you - who frequently claim some level of technical understanding - would suggest this illustrates how little you really do know.

The reason Valve took so long is their heavy investment in PC technology, their very close informal relationship with Microsoft and pure technological chauvinism that prevented them from being able to assess the PS3 architecture dispassionately. That and a healthy dose of lazy developer syndrome, which has thankfully vaporized completely.

Last edited by Highlander on 3/28/2011 12:26:30 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Saturday, March 26, 2011 @ 4:38:55 PM
Reply

i do not think the ps3 was a mistake. just that it could be more devoper friendly while keeping it's upside. square did a great job with the ps3. i was thrilled that game came out better on the ps3.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 6:50:05 PM

I agree, Sony could have easily kept the Cell architecture, blu-ray drive etc and still used a slightly more advanced graphics card, instead of one that is even a bit inferior to the xbox360, despite being one year plus older, which in itself makes no sense at all. They also could easily have added another 256mb video RAM and another 256mb system RAM, without significantly adding manufacturing cost to the system. Had they done that they wouldn't have had the problems with multi-platform titles that they still do today.

I remember even when the PS3 launched, I was shocked when I learned how poor of a graphics card was actually in it, and that it only had 256+256mb of memory, I had a more advanced graphics card with twice as much video memory and 2gb of system memory already back then, and I didn't even have an expensive new high-end PC...

Retail consumer prices of 1gb of memory was like $60, it's just silly when you think of the cost-cutting Sony did on the most important things, on an already expensive system.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 9:28:11 PM

crabba

RSX lacks some features compared to 360's GPU, but has higher performance in some areas. It depends on what you want from the GPU. Also, the GPU in the PS3 was not originally intended to carry all the load, originally the PS3 was designed without a GPU.

REgarding the additional costs you think are minimal. Doubling the amount of XDR system RAM in the system would have nearly doubled the memory cost since the XDR costs so much more than the more conventional video memory. Considering that Sony was already losing at least $300 per unit, you can hardly ask them to lost another $50 per unit to satisfy your 20-20 hindsight expressed more than 4 years later, can you?

Used properly the RSX Cell combination more than outpaces the Xenon/Xenos combination inside the 360. stacked side by side in a feature comparison Xenos looks more attractive than RSX because it has a couple of additional features that the RSX obviously lacks. However the raw processing of the RSX is actually higher than the Xenos, so it depends what you are doing and how you do it. Also, RSX serves as the memory controller for the Cell, so it's possible to shunt data back and forth between the Cell and RSX with very low latency and high bandwidth. This allows the RSX to be uses as an extension of the Cell in some respects, and in some respects it allows the SPUs on the Cell to be supplemental elements on the RSX, the two truly can work together as one.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 6:54:45 PM
Reply

I've never played this game, and although I like this type of game, I can't really say it looked that interesting to me from the reviews and videos I've seen.

I also think it's rather silly of them to talk about how they had to focus on the 360 and skip the PS3 (and PC), when in fact they easily could have made a PC version without much extra work, so the only logical explanation is microsoft exclusivity money, not "focus", and considering the rather poor review scores and sales, it doesn't look like their so-called focus paid off anyway...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Got the Wii U?
Yep, had mine since day one.
Yeah; I just recently picked it up.
No, but I might get one soon...
No, and I don't ever want one.

Previous Poll Results