EA Dev: The way PS3 Dev Tools work Just Sucks

DarkArcani - 806 days 8 hours ago

Both consoles have the SAME AMOUNT OF RAM.

Edit: Disagrees.... Someone find me something that says one has more RAM than the other.

Agree(18) | Disagree(17) | Report

larry007 - 806 days 8 hours ago

so what do you expect from them.

ps3 can run all x360 games but not vice versa. Peter moore would obviously making EA do trashtalking

But this is what developer say

***************************** ****************************** * *********
SQUARE ENIX === we are doings things on FF13 which u could hardly manage without the ps3

FACTOR 5
IGN: Quick Fanboy wars question -- Could Lair be done under its current spec on the Xbox 360? If so, why go with the PlayStation 3 "only" instead of going cross-platform?

Eggebrecht: Lair in its current form couldn't be done on 360. We are using large amounts of Cell's SPUs for all of our geometry, landscape, simulations, animations, even troop AI. When we create a game, we absolutely focus on the platform it is designed around. Would we do one for 360, it would be a different game and a different engine -- most crucially perhaps though: Lair is an entirely different game without the motion control and gesture recognition since it was designed around it.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles...

NAMCO on RR7
http://www.pro-g.co.uk/ps3/...

Not one to blow his own trumpet, Teramoto also expressed his pleasure to offer RR7 in 1080p, at 60fps and in 5.1, something he claims is only possible on the PS3.

***************************** ******************************* ******

BTW both x360 and ps3 have same amount of RAM

***************************** ******************************* ******

Both have same amount of ram

However x360 has very slow 512mb of ram @ 700mhz

ps3 has 256 mb of GDDR3 @ 700mhz and 256mb of XDR @ 3.2 ghz (4.5x the speed)

However ps3 cannot be compared to x360 since it has 2x the cache as x360 mapping at 2x the speed.

ps3 has 2x the bandwidth as x360 (50g/s vs 22g/s)

Ofcourse not to even mention Cell is 10x XENON

***************************** ****************************** * ******

BTW ps3 takes up 20m extra RAM only when you are videochatting in GAMES eg WARHAWK...which is fun

However not all games incorporate VIDEOCHATTING INTERFACES

***************************** ****************************** * *******

FAST direct mapping + XDR more than compensates for the addition of extra RAM (only during VIDEOCHATTING ingame)

Agree(18) | Disagree(21) | Report

WafflesID - 806 days 8 hours ago

ubi had no problem? Oh guess thats why we are just NOW seeing rainbow six and GRAW 2 on the PS3.

LOTs of developers are having slight difficulties with the PS3. Eventually that will change, but they have had one less year to work on the PS3 than the 360 and there hasn't been THAT big of a learning curve with the 360 to begin with.

Agree(14) | Disagree(4) | Report

SofaKingReetodded - 806 days 8 hours ago

how can there be a learning curve for a repackaged PC with an xbox logo on it??

I mean seriously, anything found in the 360 can be found on the market.
I just built me a PC that takes a massive dump on the 360.

I can't say the same for the PS3. Let me know when CompUSA put's cell processors in the display case.

Agree(8) | Disagree(10) | Report

ShiftyLookingCow - 806 days 8 hours ago

more than EA, its "EA Sports". They are a bunch of lazy devs.

ps: reported this as lame as thought it was some fanboy rant against PS3, damn I wish I could cancel it, its not working :(

edit: on second thought, maybe its the way EA Sports manages things, a game each year for each and every single sport. As we all know EA doesnt give a damn about its devs(some work for 80 hours per week without increased pay) and their lives. Work for these devs should feel monotonous.

Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report

tplarkin7 - 806 days 8 hours ago

But the 360 has an extra 10MB of EDRAM. This extra memory is embedded in the GPU and is extremely powerful. For example, it will give "free" 4xMPAA (anti-aliasing) at 720p.

Also, the 512MB is shared on 360, and split on the PS3 (between CPU/GPU).

Agree(13) | Disagree(14) | Report

BrianC6234 - 806 days 8 hours ago

What was with his comment about having one team work on this year's game and another team on the game for next year? Instead just make it so you can download updates to make the game last two years. Enough of this releasing a new game every year.

NASCAR for instance. Do the tracks change year to year? Rarely. Why do they need a new game every year? Make it so the drivers and teams and sponsors can change but the game doesn't. And then add updates gamers can buy and download.

Oh, wait. If EA does this they could no longer milk gamers of their money. Silly me for even thinking of such a thing.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

testerg35 - 806 days 7 hours ago

I think its because Sony's OS takes up something like 72megs (use to be 90+ I believe) while the 360's only uses 32megs.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Jason 360 - 806 days 7 hours ago

No they don't and the reason no one is finding any links is because everyone (even Droids) know this, every dev has mentioned it from id, Epic, Activivion, EA to 2k games. Use your search engine for a change or was the point of your comment a spin from the PS3s lack of ram? You must be one of those who scream "MYTH" when devs talk about running out of memory (id) search for all these things I mentioned here at N4G.

Agree(4) | Disagree(7) | Report

dinkeldinkse - 806 days 7 hours ago

The last two years,EA sports game have sucked anyway.Nascar 08 is probably the worst so I could give a rat's arse what a dev, from that game,said.Good job EA,you haven't made a good sports game since Madden 2006,so don't expect anymore money from me

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

Jenzo - 806 days 7 hours ago

Being different is'nt always a good thing. As popular and convenient as it seems to only bash EA for this, it's also stupid. Don't you honestly think they want to optimize their games as much as they can afford time/moneywise? Does Sony have no responsibility at all for this? Other developers have critisized Sonys devkits as well so it's not only EA. In the end it hurts them more than it hurts EA. Even if EA are "lazy", Sony should look over their devkits.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

mohib - 806 days 7 hours ago

but ps3 has 256 mb of GRR3 at 700mhz and 256mb very fast XDR ram at 3.2ghz tht works by a pointer to pinter technology nad requires very small bus width

x360 has just 512mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz

ps3 has a total system bandwidth of 22g/s + 28g/s =50g/s for main + video .

x360 has only 22g/s in total (video +main)

***************************** ******************************* ********

the eDRAM makes up for the lack of system bandwidth but ONLY AT RESOLUTIONS 720p and LOWER

This is why no game runs at native 1080p on x360

This is why all games look better on ps3 at 1080p and this is why rr7 @1080p couldnt be produced on x360
***************************** ******************************* *******

ps3 has a cache of 2mb+ ==512k for L1 + 256k for each spe(for 7 spes it is 7*256k)

total =2.3 m cache @ 3.2ghz

x360 has just 1 mb of cache @ 1.6 ghz.

the ps3's faster and larger cache allows frequent direct and indirect mapping

Agree(6) | Disagree(5) | Report

mohib - 806 days 6 hours ago

Both have same amount of ram

However x360 has very slow 512mb of ram @ 700mhz

ps3 has 256 mb of GDDR3 @ 700mhz and 256mb of XDR @ 3.2 ghz (4.5x the speed)

However ps3 cannot be compared to x360 since it has 2x the cache as x360 mapping at 2x the speed.

ps3 has 2x the bandwidth as x360 (50g/s vs 22g/s)

Ofcourse not to even mention Cell is 10x XENON

***************************** ******************************* ******

BTW ps3 takes up 20m extra RAM only when you are videochatting in GAMES eg WARHAWK...which is fun

However not all games incorporate VIDEOCHATTING INTERFACES

***************************** ******************************* *******

FAST direct mapping + XDR more than compensates for the addition of extra RAM (only during VIDEOCHATTING ingame)

Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report

i Shank u - 806 days 6 hours ago

just want to point out mohib is posting very similarly to larry007/nasim/whatever other name he makes up(stuntman) you suck nasim

edit @ below; i dont doubt much of what he posts, if not all, is fact. but i also know a fact, that is having multiple accounts on N4G is not allowed, and while i dont care much about that personally, what i care about is he makes multiple comments from multiple accounts, even on the same thread. he doesnt bring any conversation, just posts a bunch of facts everywhere like he's sony's mouth on this website. gets old, and annoying, if someone does it for 360 or whatever system i get just as annoyed. and if his facts are so true, why in the hell have i seen graphics of equal caliber as PS3, on 360, even tho "the Cell is 10x Xenos" according to him. i definitely dont see 10X better grphx on PS3, i dont even see 1.5X better grphx.

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

Mu5afir - 806 days 5 hours ago

The statements he has made are all facts, if anyone disagrees with any of the specs let me know. And I would be happy to clarify it for you.

On a side note:
One of the big "advantages" of the Xenos GPU is that it can do better shader specs then the RSX, or so was stated by Microsoft. But this turns out to be false, as the 22gb bandwidth is not enough to do complex shader ops.

Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report

ASSASSYN 36o - 806 days 4 hours ago

Thank you tplarkin7 +bubble for you.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

tmax - 806 days 2 hours ago

You can Stick EA up you *SS. What a bunch of lazy tools.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

gta_cb - 806 days 1 hour ago

just wanted to say, mohib is nasim, he signed up with another account about 19 hours ago.

REPORT HIM!

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

mike_mgoblue - 805 days 11 hours ago

Don't forget, the Football game from 2K Sports also runs at 60 frames per second on Xbox 360, but only 30 frames per second on Playstation 3.

NBA2K8 is built to a multi-platform lowest common denominator with fewer, less complex, polygons per frame of animation. Madden 2008 has FAR more complex polygons with FAR more geometric processing, and much more Artificial Intelligence needed as a result of the fact that there are SO MANY more players on the field in Football. Basketball has a much smaller number of players on the field, and that does make a big difference. As a result, the 275,000,000 polygons per second that the PS3 offers is more than enough to allow FIFA 2008 to run at 60 frames per second; however, the same could not be said for Madden 2008 (or the other Football games—including All-Pro Football 2K8 from 2K Sports). Obviously, the 500,000,000 polygons offered by the Xbox 360 is more than enough to allow 60 frames per second for FIFA 2008, Madden 2008, NCAA Football 2008, and All-Pro Football 2K8.

Let me take the time to explain in more detail.

Here is a statement that EA issued to the public that explained why Madden 2008 and the other Football games on both systems run at 60fps on the Xbox 360, but only 30fps on the Playstation 3, even though other sports games do run at 60fps on both systems.

_____________________________ _____________

In a written statement, Todd Sitrin, EA’s vice president of marketing sports branding, said that its games are tweaked in different ways to fit the different consoles.

“In designing a game, there are all sorts of tradeoffs that include frame rate, visuals, features, AI, etc. Football is an extremely challenging sport to replicate because of the number of people on the field, their interaction, and the scope of the environments. As you can see, every company making a football game this year made a decision that the best experience for the Xbox 360 included 60fps whereas the best experience for the PS3 was 30fps.”
_____________________________ _____________

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

witchking - 805 days 11 hours ago

Look, everyone knew in the last gen that Xbox was more powerful than PS2. BUT, when games got ported over we had similar graphical fidelity, especially any that were released simultaneously. Now in some cases the devs improved the graphics for the Xbox version, but that was at the expense of time (i.e., the Xbox version would come out 3 months after the PS2 version).

The reason for all of this was revenue. More users on PS2 = where you develop for = where you make your product available first.

So in this generation, MSFT purposely beat Sony to market so that they would have the larger install base. And guess what? Posts like this prove that their theory is paying off. Devs are programming to the 360 first because it has the install base, then porting to the PS3, thus negating the graphical edge that the PS3 has. If a dev wants to make use of the PS3's advantages, it takes time... and frankly, you're going to sell more to the larger install base with first to the market product. By the time GRAW2 and RSV made it to the PS3, the majority of customers who wanted those games already have them on the 360.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

witchking - 805 days 11 hours ago

Look, everyone knew in the last gen that Xbox was more powerful than PS2. BUT, when games got ported over we had similar graphical fidelity, especially any that were released simultaneously. Now in some cases the devs improved the graphics for the Xbox version, but that was at the expense of time (i.e., the Xbox version would come out 3 months after the PS2 version).

The reason for all of this was revenue. More users on PS2 = where you develop for = where you make your product available first.

So in this generation, MSFT purposely beat Sony to market so that they would have the larger install base. And guess what? Posts like this prove that their theory is paying off. Devs are programming to the 360 first because it has the install base, then porting to the PS3, thus negating the graphical edge that the PS3 has. If a dev wants to make use of the PS3's advantages, it takes time... and frankly, you're going to sell more to the larger install base with first to the market product. By the time GRAW2 and RSV made it to the PS3, the majority of customers who wanted those games already have them on the 360.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

MK_Red - 806 days 9 hours ago

True. They are really lazy.

EA should change its name to LA (Lazy Arts).

Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report

Bloodmask - 806 days 8 hours ago

You weren't saying that last gen when all the XBOX owners were getting PS2 ports just like the article stated. And you know what the games actually looked and ran better on the XBOX.

Kind of says something doesn't it. And since you say EA is "lazy" I offer you this flag for your avatar.

Agree(7) | Disagree(17) | Report

doshey - 806 days 8 hours ago

i may be a sony fanboy but i had to laugh at that, but ea is lazy

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

MK_Red - 806 days 8 hours ago

Nice pic but Saying EA is lazy is being Sony fanboy?

What I meant was that last gen consoles were not this much different thus developing for both at the same time was easy but now most devs works on different version totally individually and have to delay the non lead version (Which becomes timed-exclusive). Games like Haze and UT3 have PS3 as lead and developing for 360 takes real time just like developing the PS3 version of games with 360 as lead takes much more time.

Agree(10) | Disagree(4) | Report

ShiftyLookingCow - 806 days 8 hours ago

Bloodmask, I have seen that pic a zillion times.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

BenzMoney - 806 days 8 hours ago

That picture is missing something!

7. Microsoft must've paid them to say that.

Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report

Ri0tSquad - 806 days 7 hours ago

Sony has there sports game running at 1080p 60fps

2k games has there sport games running at 1080p 60fps & has Oblivion running better on the Playstation 3 then the Xbox 360 did

GRAW 2 proved that there was nothing wrong with ps3 with a great port

GT5 looking beautiful most realistic looking racing game ever running at 60fps 1080p very smooth.

Then comes Dirt which runs a whole lot smoother then the xbox 360 version did.

Then we get news from the people making half-life 2 saying all this about the ps3 and its optimizing nd so on.

And EA has the ps3 version of madden running at 30fps with washed out colors and you ignorant fanboys are really trying to tell me that EA isn't being lazy with this game? Do you realize how many games EA has made on the PS3 and they all just turn out to be garbage ports? Yes 2k had there game running at 30fps but they didn't cry about it they just stepped it up another level. Wow seriously theres no point arguing with some of you guys you try to make everyone else who who's just stating the obvious just a fanboy its really sad.

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

SlappyMcTaint - 806 days 6 hours ago

Boy, I'm worried about them not doing a good ASSCAR game!! They fit right in with ASSCAR: the lowest common denominator racing where innovation is quickly stifled. Sounds like EA's philosophy to me.

FUUCK EA!!

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

s8anicslayer - 806 days 4 hours ago

that is one good excuse for not wanting to do their job!wow

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

DarkArcani - 806 days 8 hours ago

If it's so hard to develop for why don't they just not develop for the console?
Blame Sony, yeah that makes sense. Blame Sony for being forward thinking and taking risks. In 10 years if MS decides to adopt a cell like architecture to use in their next console will you still think so badly on Sony?
Maybe Sony's architecture is easy to develop for, just certain developers are to use to older ways.

Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report

Relin - 806 days 8 hours ago

You won't find a single 360 title outside of the XBLA that is made using XNA, since you can do the same stuff BETTER with C++ and the 360's SDK. It's obvious that Microsoft did indeed design good dev tools, but then again, they're a software company: why does that surprise people?

Sony has made the superior hardware (though they should have been more open to suggestions from devs) and they're playing catch-up with dev tools. The PS3 development community seems to be more coherent than those who develop primarily on the 360, so the lack of Sony-proprietary dev tools hasn't affected most.

You blame Sony for their lack of development tools (due to Sony being a hardware company); I blame Microsoft for their obviously shoddy hardware (due to Microsoft being a software company). We can carry on all day playing the blame game, but all you'll realize is that neither company got it right: Nintendo did that.

Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report

scottie2521 - 806 days 8 hours ago

WHAT!!!!!!!

i'd love to point out all of your ridiculous statements but i think deep down inside you know there's no way the 360 can compete.

if you don't think the devs benefit from working with the 360's hardware longer, your just an plain idiot.

Agree(1) | Disagree(7) | Report

BrianC6234 - 806 days 8 hours ago

Sony didn't design the PS3 to be difficult for developers to make games for. They designed the PS3 to be a powerful console for five years. That's why it has Blu-ray too. DVD is getting too small. Sure it's more complicated right now if you just want to port a 360 game over. I'd say though the PS3 has the longest about of time left on the market. The 360 won't be around in another three years. I doubt the Wii will be either. Unless casual gamers buy lots of games. Game developers will find it tough to make a living off of casual games.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

beans - 806 days 8 hours ago

I'm sure there will be games made using XNA and MS has bigger plans for it then Xbox live arcade!

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

sticky doja - 806 days 8 hours ago

Do you honestly believe the 360 won't be around in 3 years? I hope you aren't serious. Also in 5 years I will want a new next gen system that will blow the 360 and PS3 out of the water, not the same system for the next 8 or 9 years, I'm a tech junkie myself, not one peice of hardware I had 5 years ago I still use today.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

BrianC6234 - 806 days 6 hours ago

Yes Sticky Doja, I do believe the 360 won't be around in three years. It wasn't designed to last five years. Microsoft rushed it out to beat Sony. Must be on the market before everyone. But they forgot, Sega beat Sony out. Sony released the PS2 after Sega released their console and look at what happened to Sega.

I think Microsoft should have waited a year and included an HD DVD drive in the 360. Right now disc size might not seem that important but you can bet it will be soon.

I remember when the PS2 came out. Games were still on CD. Who would ever need alost 5GB of space? Early games came out on the different types of discs. My early games are black discs. After a while though everything was DVD.

Now DVD is just getting too small. You can make games fit on DVD but it means lower quality graphics and sound. Blu-ray gives the developer all that extra space. If you're into HD everything do you really want to drop the quality?

The next Xbox will be out within two years. The 360 might last a year longer than the Xbox did, which was about three years. You say you'll want a new console by then. That might be okay for you but game developers don't want to learn new consoles every three years. Five years is better.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

sticky doja - 806 days 5 hours ago

On the comment about SEGA, SEGA didn't have near the financial assets Microsoft does, Microsoft can take a huge hit and keep on ticking, they won't be leaving the game world any time soon.

As far as disc size, no problems yet 2 years after release, I'm glad they came out in '05 and I didn't have to wait an extra year and pay $200.00 more for the HD DVD drive you think should have gone in, the result of not waiting means the 360 has a ton of killer apps that are already here and many more right down the way, at a good price for the console.

I think if disc size does become an issue developers will be able to accomidate, the only problem I can see that might occur would be with online multiplayer games, but I have faith that developers can figure that good stuff out, when and if the time comes that they will need to.

Also if the 360 did only last another 3 years, which it Will surpass that, but if it only lasted that, that would still give it a solid 5 years, the timeframe you feel is adequate for a game console.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

i Shank u - 806 days 5 hours ago

for all of you who think ps3 has much more graphically then 360; do you remember last gen? ps2 came out a year after dreamcast, but from the beginning of ps2, you could tell it was a better system graphically, no matter how much more time devs had with dreamcast beforehand. same thing happened a year later, when xbox came out. this gen, the ps3 has YET to prove itself graphically superior, and we are at the point where it should have. last gen, dreamcast had 16mb of ram vs. ps2 32mb. there was clearly an advantage for ps2, as there was for xbox, which had 64 mb.
this gen, the specs are pretty equal, ps3 having the better processor, 360 having the better grphx card and unified memory w/eDRAM, and thus, the results are proving to be pretty equal as well. the proof is in the pudding, as the cliche goes, and anyone who says either system is going to have significantly better grphx is just plain reaching for hope.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Relin - 806 days 4 hours ago

I'm sure they have bigger plans for it, and they've proven that with how much they've put into the library and language and free tools. I've been using it for about six months and I can easily say its a dream for any indie developer.

C#, however, has some inherent problems that prevent it from hedging C++ out of big studios (and I use the word "problems" loosely, as they're more insurmountable challenges). The garbage collection used automatically in C# is great for programmers who hate dealing with memory consumption, but professional programmers can do the same job manually with much less overhead. That alone makes it fairly useless for full console titles, but excellent for arcade titles.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

witchking - 805 days 11 hours ago

Dudes, the 360 will be here in 3 years. HOWEVER, it won't be the same 360 you can buy today. Hello? The 360 you buy today isn't the same 360 you bought when it launched 2 years ago. They purposely built a CUSTOMIZABLE/SWAPPABLE machine.

2 years ago you got no HDMI and 20 gb hard drive.

Now you have HDMI and 120 gb HD. Soon the 65nm chips will be in the machine.

In 3 years we'll see a 360 Ultimate with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (depending on which ones wins, if either of them do) and 250gb HD and who knows what else. That was the point of building a machine that could be customized... they can keep reissuing upgrades to it. They upped the RAM to 512mb based on developer request, and the processor and graphics are top notch. Will an Xbox 720 come to market? Sure... but not until MSFT wrings what they can out of the design decisions they made around allowing customizability in this generation.

I'm still on my first 360 but seriously getting tempted to go get an Elite. The only thing holding me back is that I think they'll have a high def player to it once we see which way the wind blows on that war AND they can get it in there for under the PS3 price.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report