EA: PlayStation 3 Development Problematic... Unless It Comes First
But it's getting better
John Riccitiello, CEO of EA
Speaking in a conference call yesterday EA's CEO, John Riccitiello, said that development for the PlayStation 3 is still taking longer than for the Xbox 360 in some instances.
Asked by an analyst if PS3 development has caught up with the often swifter cycle of the 360, Riccitiello said, “Not quite. There’s no doubt that Electronic Arts, along with many other publishers, had some challenges essentially meeting the technical specifications effectively on the PlayStation 3".
Does this tense now mean that EA (like many other publishers) no longer has these problems? Does the use of the phrase "meeting the technical specifications effectively" mean that EA (and many other publishers) can now get all the potential from the PS3?
Riccitiello emphasised (in a diplomatic manner) that this is not the issue for EA that it once was, stating, “It’s probably only a third of a problem for us as it was [nine months ago]. But there still remains some catching up to do on the engineering side for the PS3".
"Games where we led development on the PS3 platform, like Burnout (reviewed here), which is doing very well on the market today, we had no issue at all".
So, PS3 first development platform means not an issue when porting to Xbox 360, right?
"But in circumstances where we either led with the Xbox 360 or ran parallel production, for the most part, we’re still experiencing some delay on the PS3. It’s a little bit more of a challenging development environment for us".
But, porting from the PS3 to the 360 means a slower development cycle for the entire project?
Why not just start with the PS3 then?
As Riccitiello notes, problems developing for the PS3 are not isolated to EA. Rockstar recently admitted that PS3 development was a contributing factor in the delay of Grand Theft Auto IV.
Similarly, Ubisoft recently experienced problems with the PS3 version of Assassin's Creed that didn't occur on the 360 iteration.
SPOnG should also point out, however, what Epic Games' Mark Rein told SPOnG about the development of Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3: "We had Sony’s help too, which was nice. They sent some programmers over to help us optimise certain pieces of the engine, both for us and for the licensees, so we’re really happy with how it’s turned out. I mean it runs damn well. It really flies on that machine!"
Asked by an analyst if PS3 development has caught up with the often swifter cycle of the 360, Riccitiello said, “Not quite. There’s no doubt that Electronic Arts, along with many other publishers, had some challenges essentially meeting the technical specifications effectively on the PlayStation 3".
Does this tense now mean that EA (like many other publishers) no longer has these problems? Does the use of the phrase "meeting the technical specifications effectively" mean that EA (and many other publishers) can now get all the potential from the PS3?
Riccitiello emphasised (in a diplomatic manner) that this is not the issue for EA that it once was, stating, “It’s probably only a third of a problem for us as it was [nine months ago]. But there still remains some catching up to do on the engineering side for the PS3".
"Games where we led development on the PS3 platform, like Burnout (reviewed here), which is doing very well on the market today, we had no issue at all".
So, PS3 first development platform means not an issue when porting to Xbox 360, right?
"But in circumstances where we either led with the Xbox 360 or ran parallel production, for the most part, we’re still experiencing some delay on the PS3. It’s a little bit more of a challenging development environment for us".
But, porting from the PS3 to the 360 means a slower development cycle for the entire project?
Why not just start with the PS3 then?
As Riccitiello notes, problems developing for the PS3 are not isolated to EA. Rockstar recently admitted that PS3 development was a contributing factor in the delay of Grand Theft Auto IV.
Similarly, Ubisoft recently experienced problems with the PS3 version of Assassin's Creed that didn't occur on the 360 iteration.
SPOnG should also point out, however, what Epic Games' Mark Rein told SPOnG about the development of Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3: "We had Sony’s help too, which was nice. They sent some programmers over to help us optimise certain pieces of the engine, both for us and for the licensees, so we’re really happy with how it’s turned out. I mean it runs damn well. It really flies on that machine!"
Read More Like This
Comments
deleted 1 Feb 2008 13:24
1/9
PS3 technically is better when used right than the 360, not to say that makes a better game, but i cant help feeling my Mass effect on 360 if on my PS3 would run just that bit better, at least when i see the textures on faces taking forever to appear i think that.
Bentley 1 Feb 2008 15:02
2/9
I love the way EA say "we" when they mention Burnout development. Burnout was developed by Criterion, who have always been uber-talented at getting the most out of PlayStation technology. To effectively lump them in with all the other EA development teams- and I am talking specifically about the EA in-house team who ballsed up Half Life 2 on PS3- is well cheeky in my opinion.
more comments below our sponsor's message
SuperSaiyan4 4 Feb 2008 10:40
3/9
Actually no the PS3 is not technically better that just is impossible the reason being is the PS3 uses 96mb of its total 512mb RAM which I might add is 2 completely different type of memory and its GPU is around 1yr behind in technology over the 360 GPU.
The 360 memory is unified 1 type no bottlenecking unlike the PS3. The 360 only uses 32mb of the total 512mb available ram.
The GPU in the 360 has a unified shader, HDR+AA and 10mb EDRAM.
The 360 CPU is a 'gaming CPU' at heart and designed solely to function and calculate better for gaming as opposed to the PS3 CELL which is desgined for complex data calculation of programs rather than games.
So when you look at which console has more memory, more advanced GPU and put that in with a better designed CPU for gaming in mind the Xbox 360 overall is better technically for what it was meant to do - play games.
The 360 memory is unified 1 type no bottlenecking unlike the PS3. The 360 only uses 32mb of the total 512mb available ram.
The GPU in the 360 has a unified shader, HDR+AA and 10mb EDRAM.
The 360 CPU is a 'gaming CPU' at heart and designed solely to function and calculate better for gaming as opposed to the PS3 CELL which is desgined for complex data calculation of programs rather than games.
So when you look at which console has more memory, more advanced GPU and put that in with a better designed CPU for gaming in mind the Xbox 360 overall is better technically for what it was meant to do - play games.
tyrion 4 Feb 2008 15:23
4/9
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
So when you look at which console has more memory, more advanced GPU and put that in with a better designed CPU for gaming in mind the Xbox 360 overall is better technically for what it was meant to do - play games.
I'd tell you to go end get a clue, but that would make you dangerous.
I've explained to you many times, using actual figures to back up my points, that the 360 and PS3 GPUs are pretty similar in power. I'm not going to do it again, if you can't appreciate facts and figures and just keep repeating your fanboy-induced internet memes then I'm not going to waste my time posting facts over and over.
What I am going to take issue with is your laughable assertion that the 360's CPU is somehow a "gaming" CPU. This is such absolute horseshit that it deserves to be laughed out of town on a donkey.
The 360's CPU (Xenon) is three Power PC cpu's duct-taped together. It's like a small network of Macs from three years ago. There is nothing in its design that has any bearing on games. Nothing was added or enhanced, in fact the CPU is limited to in-order execution which means it can't execute parallel processes effectively if they rely on each other. You can't figure out the the answer to a problem until you need the answer.
Many modern CPUs will allow out of order execution where small simple tasks can be scheduled into the spaces between larger tasks even if their answers aren't needed for a while. This is exceptionally useful for physics and AI programming, speeding them up by quite a way.
Needless to say, physics and AI are areas that modern games make use of quite a lot. Physics is also an area that that the Cell is very good at. So in this instance, the Cell is a better "gaming" CPU than the Xenon.
Get some facts before you start squirting out your comments, it may make people treat you better if you contribute to a discussion once in a while instead of being our own little window onto the fanboy world.
deleted 4 Feb 2008 15:34
5/9
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Actually no the PS3 is not technically better that just is impossible the reason being is the PS3 uses 96mb of its total 512mb RAM which I might add is 2 completely different type of memory and its GPU is around 1yr behind in technology over the 360 GPU.
The 360 memory is unified 1 type no bottlenecking unlike the PS3. The 360 only uses 32mb of the total 512mb available ram.
The GPU in the 360 has a unified shader, HDR+AA and 10mb EDRAM.
The 360 CPU is a 'gaming CPU' at heart and designed solely to function and calculate better for gaming as opposed to the PS3 CELL which is desgined for complex data calculation of programs rather than games.
So when you look at which console has more memory, more advanced GPU and put that in with a better designed CPU for gaming in mind the Xbox 360 overall is better technically for what it was meant to do - play games.
The 360 memory is unified 1 type no bottlenecking unlike the PS3. The 360 only uses 32mb of the total 512mb available ram.
The GPU in the 360 has a unified shader, HDR+AA and 10mb EDRAM.
The 360 CPU is a 'gaming CPU' at heart and designed solely to function and calculate better for gaming as opposed to the PS3 CELL which is desgined for complex data calculation of programs rather than games.
So when you look at which console has more memory, more advanced GPU and put that in with a better designed CPU for gaming in mind the Xbox 360 overall is better technically for what it was meant to do - play games.
Why are you such a Pleb? the 360 CPU wasnt designed for gaming, its a Power PC Chip x 3 which have been around a lot longer than the original xbox, the 360 has a lot of RAW power but it cant calculate to save its arse unless its told to do so, the cell on the other hand was designed with multiple calculations and random choices on its own!
if anythign the Cell was designed for something specific unlike the 360 but all i was saying was that maybe Mass Effect may run a little better on PS3 than on 360. i didnt need your fanboyistic bollox facts schmacks explaination,
SuperSaiyan4 4 Feb 2008 15:49
6/9
The 360 CPU is based on the PowerPC architecture but its a custom design created on the basis for 'gaming'.
What Sony did was look at was in development aka CELL but the CELL is not designed for gaming at all.
Both the 360 and PS3 processors are singular process CPU's they do not calculate in parrallel processing like conventional CPU's.
With the CELL its overpowered for something its not designed for where the 360 processor has the power and is designed for the purpose of gaming - its a gaming cpu.
And its for this reason that developers are having issues making games for the PS3.
What the f**k were Sony thinking seperating the memory into 2 completely different modules one being XDR RAM and the other standard spec?? Bottlenecking R us!
Its also rather humours that a once PS only game can look better on the Xbox 360 like Devil May Cry 4 where 'motion blur' is the excuse used for its typical greyed out and washed out colours...Funny how it has motion blur especially when nothing is moving on screen *rolls eyes*
What Sony did was look at was in development aka CELL but the CELL is not designed for gaming at all.
Both the 360 and PS3 processors are singular process CPU's they do not calculate in parrallel processing like conventional CPU's.
With the CELL its overpowered for something its not designed for where the 360 processor has the power and is designed for the purpose of gaming - its a gaming cpu.
And its for this reason that developers are having issues making games for the PS3.
What the f**k were Sony thinking seperating the memory into 2 completely different modules one being XDR RAM and the other standard spec?? Bottlenecking R us!
Its also rather humours that a once PS only game can look better on the Xbox 360 like Devil May Cry 4 where 'motion blur' is the excuse used for its typical greyed out and washed out colours...Funny how it has motion blur especially when nothing is moving on screen *rolls eyes*
daz 5 Feb 2008 02:31
7/9
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Its also rather humours that a once PS only game can look better on the Xbox 360 like Devil May Cry 4 where 'motion blur' is the excuse used for its typical greyed out and washed out colours...Funny how it has motion blur especially when nothing is moving on screen *rolls eyes*
maybe one should read this:- http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/849/849224p1.html, and see an optition.
anyway, maybe EA should stop worrying about how hard it is to make games and start realising they don't know how make good game's (mostly where lisence's are involved, yet they somehow for some reason still get them) and start thinking about how to rectify that.
SuperSaiyan4 5 Feb 2008 09:37
8/9
Hahaha what a funny bunch go ask IBM about the CELL in the PS3 and the PowerPC CPU they also made for the Xbox 360 and ask which one is better suited for gaming...I am sure they will tell you the PowerPC CPU.
And no the Xenos and the RSX are NOT similar in power, thanks to to the 10mb EDRAM its not even close.
Oh and the technologies in both GPU's vary greatly with the 360 GPU having a huge edge in graphical technology with the features it has.
And no the Xenos and the RSX are NOT similar in power, thanks to to the 10mb EDRAM its not even close.
Oh and the technologies in both GPU's vary greatly with the 360 GPU having a huge edge in graphical technology with the features it has.
tyrion 5 Feb 2008 19:06
9/9
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Both the 360 and PS3 processors are singular process CPU's they do not calculate in parrallel processing like conventional CPU's.
More arse-speaking without fact-checking from SS4!
Both the Cell and the Xenon can do parallel processing. The Xenon can run six parallel threads at once since it has three dual-core processors on its die. The Cell as used in the PS3 can, theoretically, run nine parallel threads, one on each of the seven SPEs and two on the central PPE core, which is two-way multi-threaded.
Those threads are by no means equal, the two on the Cell PPE are similar to the six on the Xenon, but the seven on the SPEs are highly different. By using the SPE threads well, the Cell can out-perform the Xenon at the same clock speed.