PS3 costs scaring away developers?

[Epiphany]

link

 

If this is true, once XNA rolls out, things could get even worse for the PS3.

 

edit:

 

Relating to console exclusives - this by no means the PS3 will disappear, but if true, it will mean there will be very few 3rd party exclusive titles on the system.

Edited October 14, 2005 by Epiphany

[Hurlshort]

What does that investment cover? Do they mean developers just aren't ready to create for this technology? This is a very vague article.

 

We don't even know how much the PS3 is going to be for retail. I've heard around $500 due to the graphics tech., but most say that's too high.

 

The platform is still a long ways away from being released, so this just sounds like aimless gossip.

[Epiphany]

What does that investment cover?  Do they mean developers just aren't ready to create for this technology?  This is a very vague article.

 

The translation of the other article, combined with the secondary one, point that the investment of 17.6 million is just to start the project. Developers are ready to create, as is shown by all the titles announced for the X360, and the few that have so far been announced for the PS3. It's just that PS3 development costs are going to be so high, that many developers are looking elsewhere.

 

We don't even know how much the PS3 is going to be for retail.  I've heard around $500 due to the graphics tech., but most say that's too high.

 

It won't be $500 for the graphics tech, as it does nothing special, it'll be $500+ because of blu-ray.

 

The platform is still a long ways away from being released, so this just sounds like aimless gossip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gossip or not, many Japanese companies are announcing games for the X360, and several of those games are exclusive ones. While some of the games may not be the "best games ever" the mere fact they're exclusive is a big step.

[Guest Fishboot]

The translation of the other article, combined with the secondary one, point that the investment of 17.6 million is just to start the project.

 

That can't be right, can it?

[Epiphany]

The translation of the other article, combined with the secondary one, point that the investment of 17.6 million is just to start the project.

 

That can't be right, can it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People have said all along that PS3 development would be ultra expensive. Many reports have also stated that the average next gen title would have similar production values to an average hollywood movie, so 17.6 million + the 50+ million it could take to make a decent game could simply be more than what small developers are willing to spend.

 

MS is waiving all of their licensing fees if the game being developed is console exclusive - which I'm sure Sony may do if the trend continues, or if they get no exclusive 3rd party titles other than the yearly contributions of DMC and MGS.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Sony do have pretty high standards.

[Hurlshort]

The Xbox360 is coming out in a couple months, but the PS3 is still quite a ways off. Of course there are a lot more titles announced for it. They seem like two very different platforms. The Xbox is a minor step forward, while the PS3 is a risky attempt at changing the status quo. It may seem strange now, but Sony has a pretty good gambling record.

[Epiphany]

The Xbox360 is coming out in a couple months, but the PS3 is still quite a ways off.  Of course there are a lot more titles announced for it.  They seem like two very different platforms.  The Xbox is a minor step forward, while the PS3 is a risky attempt at changing the status quo.  It may seem strange now, but Sony has a pretty good gambling record.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Minor step forward???

 

LOL

 

The X360 is a technical powerhouse, with a custom built GPU that is ground breaking and generations ahead of any GPU on the market or coming to the market in the next year, and a CPU that was tailored to run video game code with extreme ease.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The Xbox360 is coming out in a couple months, but the PS3 is still quite a ways off.  Of course there are a lot more titles announced for it.  They seem like two very different platforms.  The Xbox is a minor step forward, while the PS3 is a risky attempt at changing the status quo.  It may seem strange now, but Sony has a pretty good gambling record.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sony is running an intergrated strategy. Since the PS2 pretty much kickstarted the DvD revolution it's not unreasonable to expect the PS3 to do the same with Blu Ray. Especially as you now have 6 of the 7 big players behind Blu Ray and the last one wavering (or already crossed over since this info is about a week old).

 

There is a lot of desperation on the MS side of things. I'm sure you can detect it if you compare what they are saying to how the development of the unit progressed. But Sony are sticking pretty much to their gameplan at the moment.

The 360 will get a lot of early thunder , but it has to be sustainable. The PS2 figures prior to the Xbox for example are a fraction of those following it's launch.

 

The best thing to do if your not an impatient sort is to hold of till both are on the market, then you win either way.

[mkreku]

The X360 is a technical powerhouse, with a custom built GPU that is ground breaking and generations ahead of any GPU on the market or coming to the market in the next year, and a CPU that was tailored to run video game code with extreme ease.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which console has ever had a GPU that was NOT "custom built" for it..? The PS3 also has a "custom built" GPU.

 

The CPU in the Xbox 360 is a PowerPC triple core processor. You and the Microsoft team might see that as a huge step forward, but I am sure the rest of the world sees it as pretty minor. Especially when compared to the CELL.

 

I am assuming that the "groundbreaking" feature in the GPU you are referring to is the unified shaders. I'm impressed with ATI too, but I sure want to see them function in a lot of different games before I start naming them groundbreaking. Nvidia is (naturally) very sceptical of this new technology, although I suspect that ATI may be right in that unified shaders are the future. Still, too early to tell.

 

Just like Blu-Ray is too early to tell if it's a step forward or a big bust.

[Darque]

The Hexbox 1.5 isn't that groundbreaking.

[Kaftan Barlast]

...developing software for the PS3 from scratch requires an initial investment of at least 2 billion yen (US $17.6 million) and that

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The Hexbox 1.5 isn't that groundbreaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not a fan then Darque ? You do have to have a pretty weird definition of what groundbreaking is to see the 360 as it I guess.

 

If anything it's less groundbreaking than the Xbox which introduced the concept of a harddrive to a console as a standard feature. Shame they backpeddled so much this time around.

[Darque]

The Hexbox 1.5 isn't that groundbreaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not a fan then Darque ? You do have to have a pretty weird definition of what groundbreaking is to see the 360 as it I guess.

 

If anything it's less groundbreaking than the Xbox which introduced the concept of a harddrive to a console as a standard feature. Shame they backpeddled so much this time around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not about being a fan, though if they had added true reverse compatability I might have become one.

 

It's just it seems Microsoft is trying too hard to be first, as if that'll really matter in the long run.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not up on all the techno mumbo jumbo of the next two consoles. I have a groundbreaking piece of technology called a PC. If it gets slow, I can open it up and tinker with it. Just based on the graphics and the demos I've seen, the Xbox360 will not surpass a high-end PC.

 

The PS3 seems to be a bit beyond the current PC, but again, I'm not big on the tech stuff.

[Guest Fishboot]

I'm not buying into the, "This is three generations ahead of PC!" from either of the Sony or MS camps, but they're certainly going to be equivalent to many times their cost in generic PC hardware, won't have to run a full bore OS, will have custom APIs that can be specifically optimized, will have serious economics of scale, will extort developer exclusivity, and will be aggressively underpriced by two corporate vomit-demons fighting for share. I think PCs will have a place but I suspect we'll morph into some kind of second-level front for videogames, particularly if Sony and MS recklessly push their game budgets into the stratosphere.

[kumquatq3]

Is it me or does the 360 have a bit of a dreamcast odor to it?

 

It's all trivial anyways, as the Revolution will own! "

Edited October 15, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Nartwak]

I think it's you.

 

Though yes, the Revolution will own.

Edited October 15, 2005 by Nartwak

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's not about being a fan, though if they had added true reverse compatability I might have become one.

 

It's just it seems Microsoft is trying too hard to be first, as if that'll really matter in the long run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep there is a lot of grey there. I expect a big series of complaints when people finally try out what Xbox work.

 

My thoughts exactly, they have a cut a heck of a lot of corners to be first out.

 

If it were not an MS product then I would agree Kumquat, the Xbox only survived because MS threw a lot of money at it. If the 360 dosnt make any money, then I can see MS moving on to pastures new after this.

 

Even things like live which it loves to say is a success. Well there are more people playing PS2 games online and Sony isnt charging extra for it. Even Allard will tell you this, it's one of his least favourite interview questions.

 

The PS2 is also acknowledged as a pain to develop for, but like the Sony rep said, it didnt stop them having a shedload of games. If anything the PS3 is easier than the PS2 to get to grips with.

 

As for the revolution. Not really sure, some people are too impressed by pretty pictures these days. However since Nintendo are repsonsible for things like the dual analogue and rumble features we take for granted I wouldnt write them off just yet.

[Nartwak]

Well there are more people playing PS2 games online and Sony isnt charging extra for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How sure are you about that?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

How sure are you about that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

100% thats why I mentioned Allard.

 

Read it in a recent interview where he was lamenting that not enough people in Europe are playing on live.

 

He also reckons that 50% of people who buy a 360 will play on live long term.

Edited October 15, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Child of Flame]

FACT: PEOPLE LIKE THINGS THAT ARE FREE BETTER THAN THINGS THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR!

[Darque]

You got that right.

[Nartwak]

100% thats why I mentioned Allard.

What interview would that be? I was checking up on this the other day myself and I was getting conflicting projections.

 

 

Free kick to the genitals

versus

Twenty dollar Jaguar

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

100% thats why I mentioned Allard.

What interview would that be? I was checking up on this the other day myself and I was getting conflicting projections.

 

 

Free kick to the genitals

versus

Twenty dollar Jaguar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I can track it down I'll post it.

 

However since the PS2 wasnt network compatible as standard and factoring in the number of these http://shop.gameplay.co.uk/webstore/produc...network_adaptor things sold it's pretty clear.