Xbox 360 v.s. PS3

[Asteroid-Man]

No, seriously. It's because if they did it the other way around, things would not port appropriately, so they have to make them for the 360 first and then move them over (this is for games available on both consoles only - when it comes to games also available on the PC, it looks best on PC, then 360 and then PS3, as a 360 is much closer to the programing system used for a PC). Although they are figuring out how to avoid the video issues (less contrast, or brightness and colour adjustment on the PS3), it's still not 100% fixed.

Obviously, PS3 EXCLUSIVES look better (as BluRay discs can hold more data).

 

[Teelie]

Sony even admits as much even as it actively denies it. There's also this:

Unfortunately for Sony, from a practical business standpoint, publishers are going to cater to the lowest common denominator, which among high-definition consoles would likely be assigned to Xbox 360. So even if a developer would like to leverage certain PS3 features, it's often easier to just create the game for Microsoft's system, notes Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter.

 

[Bnightwing]

What's the difference in the Slim and normal 360 gb ps3?

 

[Teelie]

The best and most reliable differences between the two PS3's I can find are at this page. If you mean the PS3 slim vs 360 elite then that's another thing entirely.

 

[hippie_hunter]

No, seriously. It's because if they did it the other way around, things would not port appropriately, so they have to make them for the 360 first and then move them over (this is for games available on both consoles only - when it comes to games also available on the PC, it looks best on PC, then 360 and then PS3, as a 360 is much closer to the programing system used for a PC). Although they are figuring out how to avoid the video issues (less contrast, or brightness and colour adjustment on the PS3), it's still not 100% fixed.

Again that is wrong. More and more games are using the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform because it is so much easier and cheaper to port from the PlayStation 3 to Xbox 360. It's a pain in the ass to port from the Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3. Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3 ports have also suffered from quality issues which have annoyed a lot of consumers, something that publishers do not want.

Medal of Honor, L.A. Noire, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Armored Core V, Vanquish, Army of Two, Dead Space, etc. used the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform. It's actually predicted that by 2015 almost all third party games will use the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform. It's just more economical and more efficient.

Some games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Red Dead Redemption, and Bioshock: Infinite don't even have a lead platform.

You're thinking of when the PlayStation 3 was first released and developers had little experience with it. It's now 2011 where developers have had years of experience with the PlayStation 3 and most multiplatform games are now on par with one another.

Obviously, PS3 EXCLUSIVES look better (as BluRay discs can hold more data).

PlayStation 3 exclusives look better than multiplatform games because almost all exclusives are first and second party games, not because of blu-ray. Blu-ray holding more data prevents decompression and allows gamers to stick with one disk, but the reason why PlayStation 3 exclusives look the best is because Sony gives them the tools and funding to make the best looking games possible. Sony wants to show off the graphical prowess of the PlayStation 3 through their games and third party developers aren't going to do that.

It's why the best looking Xbox 360 games are the ones published by Microsoft. And why the best looking Wii games are published by guess who? [blackout]Nintendo[/blackout]

Sony even admits as much even as it actively denies it. There's also this:

Catering to the lowest common denominator (Xbox 360s without hard drivews) doesn't change the fact of what either the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 can do. It just means that third party publishers aren't going to push the bar as much as possible. It means that it's up to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to provide the best looking games graphically in order to showcase their consoles.

 

[X Knight]

so....what about when most PS3 games say they "support 720p" HD output on the back of the box, but the 360 version of the games say they "support 1080p" HD output on the back of the box??

does that mean the PS3 games only run in 720p while the 360 versions run in 1080p??

that's always confused me......lol

 

[Spidey-Bat]

MS makes all games for the 360 support 1080p. Sony doesn't have such restrictions so most are just 720p. I think they can up-scale to 1080p but don't look as good as natural 1080p. The short of it is you won't notice a significant difference unless you play on an immense TV or are a huge graphics ****e.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Again that is wrong. More and more games are using the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform because it is so much easier and cheaper to port from the PlayStation 3 to Xbox 360. It's a pain in the ass to port from the Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3. Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3 ports have also suffered from quality issues which have annoyed a lot of consumers, something that publishers do not want.

Medal of Honor, L.A. Noire, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Armored Core V, Vanquish, Army of Two, Dead Space, etc. used the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform. It's actually predicted that by 2015 almost all third party games will use the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform. It's just more economical and more efficient.

Some games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Red Dead Redemption, and Bioshock: Infinite don't even have a lead platform.

You're thinking of when the PlayStation 3 was first released and developers had little experience with it. It's now 2011 where developers have had years of experience with the PlayStation 3 and most multiplatform games are now on par with one another.


PlayStation 3 exclusives look better than multiplatform games because almost all exclusives are first and second party games, not because of blu-ray. Blu-ray holding more data prevents decompression and allows gamers to stick with one disk, but the reason why PlayStation 3 exclusives look the best is because Sony gives them the tools and funding to make the best looking games possible. Sony wants to show off the graphical prowess of the PlayStation 3 through their games and third party developers aren't going to do that.

It's why the best looking Xbox 360 games are the ones published by Microsoft. And why the best looking Wii games are published by guess who? [blackout]Nintendo[/blackout]


Catering to the lowest common denominator (Xbox 360s without hard drivews) doesn't change the fact of what either the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 can do. It just means that third party publishers aren't going to push the bar as much as possible. It means that it's up to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to provide the best looking games graphically in order to showcase their consoles.

hippie, where are you getting these facts from? From a developper's standpoint it's near impossible to properly port from PS3 to 360 due to conflicting codes... and in terms of cost, there is virtually no extra cost from a developers standpoint when programing for Microsoft because it is completely compatible with the computer software used to write codes... Even Sony has said that developers make games for 360 first and then port them to the PS3. As posted above:

Unfortunately for Sony, from a practical business standpoint, publishers are going to cater to the lowest common denominator, which among high-definition consoles would likely be assigned to Xbox 360. So even if a developer would like to leverage certain PS3 features, it's often easier to just create the game for Microsoft's system, notes Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter.

Source: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/...out-games-looking-better-on-ps3-says-analyst/

I'm sure there are exceptions but for the most part, this is a universal truth and is accepted by most developers (including those at Sony). The only people I've ever heard call this wrong are PS3 gamers.

And by the way by 2015 we'll probably be in the next wave of consoles... So I'm seriously curious as to where you pulled out these reports on dates and statistics.

 

[hippie_hunter]

hippie, where are you getting these facts from? From a developper's standpoint it's near impossible to properly port from PS3 to 360 due to conflicting codes... and in terms of cost, there is virtually no extra cost from a developers standpoint when programing for Microsoft because it is completely compatible with the computer software used to write codes... Even Sony has said that developers make games for 360 first and then port them to the PS3. As posted above:

I'm sure there are exceptions but for the most part, this is a universal truth and is accepted by most developers (including those at Sony). The only people I've ever heard call this wrong are PS3 gamers.

Many developers have come out and said that they use the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform for all those games that I have mentioned. You want proof, here you go: Army of Two, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood Armored Core V, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Dead Space, Driver: San Fransisco, Dynasty Warriors 7 Final Fantasy XIII, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, L.A. Noire, Medal of Honor, Thor: God of Thunder, and Vanquish.

You want proof on games that don't have a lead platform, here you go: BioShock Infinite, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and Red Dead Redemption.

Where ever you heard about it being impossible to port from the PlayStation 3 to Xbox 360 is dead wrong. Quite possibly one of the most wrong things I have ever heard about the gaming world. Developers have come out saying that it's much easier to port from the PlayStation 3 to Xbox 360 than it is to port from the Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3. You want proof, here you go:

We found out that people were doing 360 and then trying to get stuff across to PS3 and were struggling with it. There seems to be less of a struggle to go the other way, I think. You hear things that you have to put a lot of effort into on PS3 and get it up and running pretty quickly on the 360. Then, like everyone else you have to scramble to get your framerate up. - Brendan McNamara, Team Bondi

A lot of people and a lot of focus as far as games that we have internally that are going to be multi-SKU are trying to put the PS3 out in front now... I don't think it's necessarily a negative to put the PS3 first. But it does help mitigate some of that risk in framerate, memory, technology, just the hardware differences. - Mike Bilder, Midway Games

Obviously each console has its own unique requirements and limitations, but we feel if we can create a good enough presentation on PS3, we'll be off to a good start. - Shinji Mikami, Platinum Games

development on the PS3 has made for a better 360 game - Nick Channon, Criterion Games

An unnamed demoer from E3 this year told reporters that it would be mad to use the Xbox 360 as the lead platform due to difficulties related to porting to the PlayStation 3.

Also, you're dead wrong about Sony saying that developers should make games first for the Xbox 360 and then port them to the PlayStation 3.

Developers are telling us that they are starting to create their games on PS3 first and take advantage of the hardware capabilities and then port down to other platforms so we are seeing tremendous progress from the third party community in terms of what they are able to do with our development kits. - Jack Tretton, President and C.E.O. of Sony Computer Entertainment America

We're now in our third and fourth generations with first party, and that will start to create some distance with the competition - from our standpoint - but as the third parties begin to move their development to native PS3 and port down to other platforms, they'll start to see their games' fidelity getting better and better - and in fact I think even Xbox 360 games will start to look better as a result. - Scott Steinberg, VP of Product Marketing, Sony Computer Entertainment America

So not only has Sony come out saying how more and more developers are using the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform, they are also saying that using the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform leads to better multiplatform titles on the Xbox 360.

As for cost, it's cheaper to use the PlayStation 3 as the lead platform. It's not that it's more expensive to develop for the Xbox 360 but because it's difficult to port from the Xbox 360 to the PlayStation 3. And when it's more difficult to port from the Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3, it takes more time and effort to do such a thing. And when more time and effort are put into something, more money is put into it to pay for the costs related. So when you go the other way around, where it is much easier to port from the PlayStation 3 to Xbox 360, less time and effort are used up, with less time and effort are used, the costs go down. It's simple economics.

And now that the costs related to PlayStation 3 development have gone significantly down due to developers learning how to use it, along with a much expanded PlayStation 3 user base, publishers are no longer wary of using it as the lead platform like they used to when PlayStation 3 development was much more expensive than Xbox 360 development and had a much smaller user base.

Source: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/...out-games-looking-better-on-ps3-says-analyst/

You totally misunderstood what Pachter said. What he means by lowest common denominator is that that publishers want to make games for everyone: PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 (without the hard drive) owners. What he means is that publishers aren't going to go balls to the wall for the PlayStation 3 version and make a gimped version of the Xbox 360. They want to bring the same experience to everyone and not piss consumers off by selling them inferior versions. As a result, developers are not going to push the boundaries with multiplatform PlayStation 3 games so that way both versions are equal.

And if you ask me, that's fair. Multiplatform games should be the same experience for everyone. I hated it when PlayStation 3 ports were the inferior version of a game. And I'm sure that Xbox 360 owners hate it that Valve made the Xbox 360 version of Portal 2 inferior to the PlayStation 3 version along with the PlayStation 3 versions of games such as Mortal Kombat, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Mafia II, Toy Story 3, etc. get exclusive PlayStation 3 content.

And by the way by 2015 we'll probably be in the next wave of consoles... So I'm seriously curious as to where you pulled out these reports on dates and statistics.

It's from a market research and analysis firm called IDC. I'm pretty sure that a market research firm dedicated to consumer electronics knows these things a bit better than you or I.