HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Geek Emporium
Geek Emporium Discuss computers, hardware, software, electronics, video games, internet, etc.

Insomniac partners with EA to go multi-platform

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-26-2010, 11:58 AM
  #26
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,673
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiac View Post
i think i remember reading that EA said it was easier to port from the ps3 to the 360 rather than from the 360 to the ps3. i think ...not 100%.

the main reasons i vaguely remember reading about as to why the ps3 multiplatform games aren't usually quite on par with the 360 is because it supposedly has a weaker GPU and because of how sony has their memory set up ...256 for the system and 256 for the GPU making things more difficult for developers. i think the xbox GPU has full access to the 512 meg of ram in the 360 ...so that makes things easier for devs. they don't have to tweek as much i guess ...some fanboys calling them 'lazy' because of it.

its been so long since i read about that stuff, so it might not be completely accurate ...but i'm sure i remember reading something like that.
From what I understand, the 360 is built like a computer, so it has one main processor... whereas the PS3 has the Cell in the middle and seven smaller processors working in unison, to be directed by the Cell. When games get ported over from 360, rather than divide processes up into the smaller processors and optimize the quality, they just dump everything on the Cell quick-and-dirty-like.

It's probably the main reason why PS3 exclusives have particle effects and shaders the 360 doesn't have room for, and games ported to the PS3 seem to invariably have problems with the framerate.

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2010, 12:14 PM
  #27
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyMike01 View Post
The less exclusives the better. No one should be forced to choose between this great game and that great game, or spend thousands of dollars to play them all.
What exactly would the point be for different consoles then, I mean hell MS, Nintendo and Sony may as well all merge then.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2010, 12:20 PM
  #28
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,673
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
As for this whole exclusives/no-exclusives debate, consider Sega. Sega made the most money when they were a console holder. They had first party studios that only released games on Sega hardware, thus increasing the worth of their Sega hardware. As their studios went down in quality, their hardware became less valuable, and soon they were sunk. In a world of no-exclusives, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony will all become Sega. It profits them much less to be third party developers.

The 'next-gen' hardware developers are massive media corporations with R&D divisions that even Activision and EA couldn't match up with. If EA had Sony's assets, I guarantee you the Electronic Arthouse console would be out there. Of course, the major sports leagues would pull their licenses, and it would irreparably destroy their relations with the other console companies... but hey.

The bottom line is, if you want consoles, you need first party devs and IPs. There's a lot of reasons why the 360 got on top; the price point, the year early... but buying up Lionhead, BioWare, Bungie, Rare, just about every Western studio they could manage, and breaking Sony's near exclusivity on Japanese publishers like Square Enix, Konami, Capcom... THAT was how.

Making consoles is not a profitable business. Without software sales, no one would do it. And exclusives are how you increase hardware sales. This industry has been going for over 30 years now, things didn't end up this way by accident.


Last edited by Jill Sandwich: 05-26-2010 at 12:26 PM.
Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2010, 12:36 PM
  #29
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadDoggFL View Post
Or going cross-platform more than doubles the potential market for a game, making the game more profitable and affording the developer more resources for the development of their next title.
Personally I don't feel it more than doubles it. A lot of people now a days have both a wii and a 360/ps3, I know some people have all 3, some people have just 1 also. But in my experiences most people who game have a wii, even if it is collecting dust, as their 2nd console, after 360/ps3. Most younger kids have the wii also.

The point is. If I already own 360/Wii and they make a game that is now cross platform to PS3, it's not going to make any difference for me.

Now you may think I'm in the minority being that I own all 3, and that few people have more than 1. I'm not going to say that people who own 1 console (out of current gen) aren't the majority, but I personally don't believe they are the majority to the point of doubling the market for said game.

Going from PS3 --> 360 or vice versa, a lot of people own both especially at their current prices. Being that most of the people who do own 2 consoles, wii is one of them, I just don't see games being cross platform giving them that much more sales, it doesn't double the market or more imo, because many people do have multiple consoles or even all 3. I think now you can buy all 3 for around 1000$ tax in, for three separate consoles that isn't bad at all. Most people could afford that over the course of three pay checks (I know not everyone can obviously, but most could)

Paycheck one, buy a wii, 2 buy a ps3, 3 buy a 360 etc. I think it's becoming more and more common that people buy multiple consoles now a days. When we were kids, some people had genesis, others had snes, I didn't know very many kids who had both though, I was one of the few, and most people I knew has SNES. Now a days everyone I know has 2 or even 3 consoles. Not saying I don't know anyone who just has a 360, I do, just saying at least from my experiences, many people own one of 360/ps3 and a wii.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2010, 05:02 PM
  #30
RoadDoggFL
Registered User
 
RoadDoggFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: Colombia
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RoadDoggFL Send a message via Yahoo to RoadDoggFL
I think you're overestimating the disposable income of the average person.

RoadDoggFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2010, 05:58 PM
  #31
meehan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york
Country: United States
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to meehan Send a message via AIM to meehan Send a message via MSN to meehan Send a message via Yahoo to meehan Send a message via Skype™ to meehan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Therrien View Post
As for this whole exclusives/no-exclusives debate, consider Sega. Sega made the most money when they were a console holder. They had first party studios that only released games on Sega hardware, thus increasing the worth of their Sega hardware. As their studios went down in quality, their hardware became less valuable, and soon they were sunk. In a world of no-exclusives, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony will all become Sega. It profits them much less to be third party developers.

The 'next-gen' hardware developers are massive media corporations with R&D divisions that even Activision and EA couldn't match up with. If EA had Sony's assets, I guarantee you the Electronic Arthouse console would be out there. Of course, the major sports leagues would pull their licenses, and it would irreparably destroy their relations with the other console companies... but hey.

The bottom line is, if you want consoles, you need first party devs and IPs. There's a lot of reasons why the 360 got on top; the price point, the year early... but buying up Lionhead, BioWare, Bungie, Rare, just about every Western studio they could manage, and breaking Sony's near exclusivity on Japanese publishers like Square Enix, Konami, Capcom... THAT was how.

Making consoles is not a profitable business. Without software sales, no one would do it. And exclusives are how you increase hardware sales. This industry has been going for over 30 years now, things didn't end up this way by accident.
You say the 360 got on top and that console makers need first party devs and IPs, yet MS have the least output from their developers of the three console makers. By my count MS have three big studios left (Lionhead, Turn 10 and Rare). Lionhead made 1 good game so far this gen, Turn 10 have 2 and Rare have not been successful since going to Microsoft. On the other hand, Sony has the most first party developers and they haven't been able to catch MS yet. Exclusives are important, but not more so than other factors like price point.

meehan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2010, 06:10 PM
  #32
19nazzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadDoggFL View Post
I think you're overestimating the disposable income of the average person.
Indeed.

I've been close to buying a 360 a couple of times but I've been put off by a few things. 1 is the RRoD issue, back in the day there was no chance I was going to buy one with that going on. How that didn't blow back completely in MS face is amazing. Yes I realize they got a lot of bad publicity but it's business as normal for the Xbox brand now.

Other thing that stops me from getting a 360 is the cost of all their accessories. PS3 gets blasted for it's price but you're not paying outrageous prices for PSN, wireless adapter, upgrading a HD etc..

__________________
- Sent from my desktop using my fingers
19nazzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 02:02 AM
  #33
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 42,570
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19nazzy View Post
Other thing that stops me from getting a 360 is the cost of all their accessories. PS3 gets blasted for it's price but you're not paying outrageous prices for PSN, wireless adapter, upgrading a HD etc..
Well that is about to change.

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 03:26 AM
  #34
19nazzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi View Post
Well that is about to change.
I'm gonna let facts get in the way.
Quote:
“I can assure you that the current PSN as you know it will remain a free service,” he said. “It is something that our competitors don’t offer and something that shows our loyalty to the PlayStation Community.”

“However,” he adds, when asked whether there’d be a paying service, “Kaz Hirai stated a few months ago that we were looking at a premium service to sit alongside the current free service and that objective has not changed.”

“You’ll learn more about it very soon.”
It's a perfect solution, if people want more advanced features you can pay for them. If not, stick with the free online service that's been around the whole time. There's nothing to complain about here or for Xbox owners to try to make themselves feel better about having to pay for their online access.

19nazzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 04:14 AM
  #35
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 42,570
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19nazzy View Post
I'm gonna let facts get in the way.

It's a perfect solution, if people want more advanced features you can pay for them. If not, stick with the free online service that's been around the whole time. There's nothing to complain about here or for Xbox owners to try to make themselves feel better about having to pay for their online access.
Yes, I was supposed to add that PSN+ in the post but forgot in a hurry.

Anyways, here are the rumors about the premium service: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/25/ru...ce-at-e3-2010/

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 04:39 AM
  #36
RoadDoggFL
Registered User
 
RoadDoggFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: Colombia
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RoadDoggFL Send a message via Yahoo to RoadDoggFL
Live will go to a split model in the future, I'm sure. Matchmaking, ranking, unlimited friends lists, there are plenty of features that can be added at a premium to keep the subscription population high while getting MS that selling point.

RoadDoggFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:14 AM
  #37
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 42,570
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadDoggFL View Post
Live will go to a split model in the future, I'm sure. Matchmaking, ranking, unlimited friends lists, there are plenty of features that can be added at a premium to keep the subscription population high while getting MS that selling point.
It's already split, Silver and Gold.

There really isn't that much they can add with increased cost that would make me want to upgrade. My friends list hasn't been full for a long time (currently at 96) and as for matchmaking, regional searching would be one feature but some games come complete with that (e.g. Halo Reach). Party size increase would be nice but that may come for free or not in any way.

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 06:13 AM
  #38
RoadDoggFL
Registered User
 
RoadDoggFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: Colombia
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RoadDoggFL Send a message via Yahoo to RoadDoggFL
Split with online play for both. Maybe some added social networking aspects...

RoadDoggFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 02:37 PM
  #39
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,673
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by meehan View Post
You say the 360 got on top and that console makers need first party devs and IPs, yet MS have the least output from their developers of the three console makers. By my count MS have three big studios left (Lionhead, Turn 10 and Rare). Lionhead made 1 good game so far this gen, Turn 10 have 2 and Rare have not been successful since going to Microsoft. On the other hand, Sony has the most first party developers and they haven't been able to catch MS yet. Exclusives are important, but not more so than other factors like price point.
Instead what's left now in 2010, let's count what they had in 2007. Such as Bungie and BioWare. Specifically, Bungie. There's a reason why the term 'Halo-killer' became tacked on to every Sony exclusive shooter.

Let's also count the impact of all the Sony exclusive franchises that went multiplatform when the 360 arrived. Remember 2004? It was Halo 2 against San Andreas. By 2007, Sony had lost their champion. Microsoft had plenty of exclusive IPs in BioShock, Dead Rising, Mass Effect, Gears of War... and very few of them were moving to PS3 at the time.

And let's face it, most of Sony's studios and partners dropped the ball in a big way for half this generation. It was starting to look like developing an exclusive for PS3 was a guarantee that your company was going to close. Guys like Factor 5 and Free Radical, studios that I considered to be ironclad propositions... history.

But yes, price point and timing are big as well. Which is why I mentioned them. But that's not why I brought it up. Console makers need first party studios and IP.

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 07:07 PM
  #40
RoadDoggFL
Registered User
 
RoadDoggFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: Colombia
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RoadDoggFL Send a message via Yahoo to RoadDoggFL
What exclusive games was Free Radical developing...?

NM, Haze. But they weren't/aren't an exclusive developer, or anything...

RoadDoggFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 08:41 PM
  #41
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,673
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
They were developing an exclusive IP for Sony, a la Mass Effect by BioWare or Gears of War by Epic.

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 12:10 AM
  #42
meehan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york
Country: United States
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to meehan Send a message via AIM to meehan Send a message via MSN to meehan Send a message via Yahoo to meehan Send a message via Skype™ to meehan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Therrien View Post
Instead what's left now in 2010, let's count what they had in 2007. Such as Bungie and BioWare. Specifically, Bungie. There's a reason why the term 'Halo-killer' became tacked on to every Sony exclusive shooter.

Let's also count the impact of all the Sony exclusive franchises that went multiplatform when the 360 arrived. Remember 2004? It was Halo 2 against San Andreas. By 2007, Sony had lost their champion. Microsoft had plenty of exclusive IPs in BioShock, Dead Rising, Mass Effect, Gears of War... and very few of them were moving to PS3 at the time.

And let's face it, most of Sony's studios and partners dropped the ball in a big way for half this generation. It was starting to look like developing an exclusive for PS3 was a guarantee that your company was going to close. Guys like Factor 5 and Free Radical, studios that I considered to be ironclad propositions... history.

But yes, price point and timing are big as well. Which is why I mentioned them. But that's not why I brought it up. Console makers need first party studios and IP.
Bungie has created a lot of revenue for MS, there is no doubt of this, but I wonder how much of that is their ability as a studio, as opposed to Microsoft's ability to market a product. I guess we will see now that Microsoft have their own developers handling Halo from here on out.

Bioware never made real "exclusive" games for xbox since all their titles are also available on PC. Since they started out as a PC developer, I would venture to say their base on PC was about equal to their user base on console, up to Mass Effect. And I don't recall Mass Effect selling a ton and pushing hardware. Great game, not a killer app however.

I don't know that GTA counts as a loss for Sony this gen, I mean, there were GTA games on xbox. They lost some Japanese third party exclusives this generation, but they were able to hold on to the most important one (MGS IV). On the other hand MS lost the Ninja Gaiden franchise, which was one of the strong points of the xbox library. They also had some good exclusives from Sega last gen that they didn't get sequels to this gen (Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio Future).

All in all, though exclusives are important, I don't think they play as big a part in the bottom line as price point, speed to market and network externalities.

meehan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 12:24 AM
  #43
RoadDoggFL
Registered User
 
RoadDoggFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: Colombia
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RoadDoggFL Send a message via Yahoo to RoadDoggFL
Quote:
Originally Posted by meehan View Post
Bioware never made real "exclusive" games for xbox since all their titles are also available on PC. Since they started out as a PC developer, I would venture to say their base on PC was about equal to their user base on console, up to Mass Effect. And I don't recall Mass Effect selling a ton and pushing hardware. Great game, not a killer app however.
Link.

KotOR sold a quarter million in four days on the Xbox and over a million total. You think it matched that on the PC?

Quote:
I don't know that GTA counts as a loss for Sony this gen, I mean, there were GTA games on xbox. They lost some Japanese third party exclusives this generation, but they were able to hold on to the most important one (MGS IV). On the other hand MS lost the Ninja Gaiden franchise, which was one of the strong points of the xbox library. They also had some good exclusives from Sega last gen that they didn't get sequels to this gen (Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio Future).
The GTA games weren't exactly the most relevant titles by the time they hit the Xbox. It was nice, but the release date softened the impact.

RoadDoggFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 10:58 AM
  #44
meehan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york
Country: United States
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to meehan Send a message via AIM to meehan Send a message via MSN to meehan Send a message via Yahoo to meehan Send a message via Skype™ to meehan
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadDoggFL View Post
Link.

KotOR sold a quarter million in four days on the Xbox and over a million total. You think it matched that on the PC?
In the same time frame? No. However, PC games do tend to have more longevity as KOTOR on pc still sells to this day. And anyway, I believe I said user base, as in total. Considering Neverwinter Nights (which came out in the xbox era) sold over 2 million (LINK) I would say it sold more than KOTOR and Jade Empire combined, which means their PC base was around equal to their base on xbox last generation. The PC market back then was stronger than it is now.

meehan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.