Tretton blames third parties for PS3 software deficiencies Options

[PS3Scene]

Tretton blames third parties for PS3 software deficiencies Posted by XanTium | 12-7-2007 23:45 EST

From gamesindustry.biz: [QUOTE] Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz at an E3 roundtable, SCEA president Jack Tretton addressed the issue of some games looking better on the 360 than they do on the PS3. "If the games don't look good on the platform, consumers aren't going to buy them. As I said, we can't control what third parties are going to do," explained Tretton. "We can try to evangelize the technology and assist those guys in development and try to convince them that it is in their best interests to take advantage of the technology. "If we have to drive the message on our platform with the games that do that...whether they are first party or third...those are the games we are going to focus on and those are the games the consumers are going to make their purchase decisions on," he said. "At some point, what's the point of porting it over to another platform if it is not going to look as good on a platform that is more expensive? Why waste any money in development doing that?" [/QUOTE] Full Story: gamesindustry.biz

[chane2k1]

I blame the third parties too, the PS3 has the power, they need to take advantage of it. Don't take short cuts to get it out the door faster. I'd rather wait a little longer and get a great game than wait less and get a half assed game with crappy frame rates due too poor optimization. The MS conference made me mad when they said that the EA 08 sports titles were going to run at 60 fps on 360 and only 30 fps on PS3, in my head "WTF I know that the PS3 can do just the same, so why not?" who knows maybe MS paid them a little extra for the benefit on their console.

[dvsone]

I'm pretty sure most third parties would say in response, "why didn't we get our dev kits sooner?".

[Martinchris23]

I blame the third parties too, the PS3 has the power, they need to take advantage of it. Don't take short cuts to get it out the door faster. I'd rather wait a little longer and get a great game than wait less and get a half assed game with crappy frame rates due too poor optimization. The MS conference made me mad when they said that the EA 08 sports titles were going to run at 60 fps on 360 and only 30 fps on PS3, in my head "WTF I know that the PS3 can do just the same, so why not?" who knows maybe MS paid them a little extra for the benefit on their console.

Don't take the Sony attitude and blame the third parties - that's too easy.

Whether or not the hardware can do it is irrelevent. There are only a handful of games available for the PS3 for a plethora of reasons, primarily though because it's so damned hard to develop for the CELL.

Because you don't mind waiting, the others out there with a $600 / £425 console may not feel the same. Sony failed to get development kits out sooner, they failed to make it easy to develop for and above all, they choose to blame others for their failings.

Martin

[zero129]

Don't take the Sony attitude and blame the third parties - that's too easy.

Whether or not the hardware can do it is irrelevent. There are only a handful of games available for the PS3 for a plethora of reasons, primarily though because it's so damned hard to develop for the CELL.

Because you don't mind waiting, the others out there with a $600 / £425 console may not feel the same. Sony failed to get development kits out sooner, they failed to make it easy to develop for and above all, they choose to blame others for their failings.

Martin

You took the words right out of my mouth.
I don't get sony at all, they must want developers to just forget about their system.
I mean Tretton pretty much has just told developers that if they can't make the games look as good on the PS3 as the 360 don't port them at all..
I'd laugh hard if EA took them up on that and didn't port any of their sports games this year to the PS3 .

[rooter75]

"At some point, what's the point of porting it over to another platform if it is not going to look as good on a platform that is more expensive? Why waste any money in development doing that?" SCEA president Jack Tretton

Exactly and further why even develop for a more expensive console that is definitely more difficult to optimize and ends up only on par with the less expensive platform performance? What developer wants to sink money into doing that??

This post has been edited by rooter75: Jul 13 2007, 05:29 PM

[KaRiL]

I agree with Jack
Why put out a crap port? if your Devs can't handle the PS3 stick with the 360. If it takes longer to polish the PS3 version, release later (MoH) releasing a crap game on a system that's practically equal with the 360 only makes the developers look bad, not Sony
Whining about how hard the PS3 is to work with is a tired excuse. We've seen great games on the PS3, so it is possible (how long did insomniac have their dev kits?)
when you develop for the lowest common denominator (read:easiest platform) which also happens to have the higher install base....Its easy to get lazy with the PS3

[CKwik240]

I agree with Jack
Why put out a crap port? if your Devs can't handle the PS3 stick with the 360. If it takes longer to polish the PS3 version, release later (MoH) releasing a crap game on a system that's practically equal with the 360 only makes the developers look bad, not Sony
Whining about how hard the PS3 is to work with is a tired excuse. We've seen great games on the PS3, so it is possible (how long did insomniac have their dev kits?)
when you develop for the lowest common denominator (read:easiest platform) which also happens to have the higher install base....Its easy to get lazy with the PS3

Wow...you are quite naive. Every thread about "lazy" devs has posts like yours. And if you search for such threads, you'll find plenty of responses explaining rather clearly why devs make the choices they do. But since you haven't seemed to have read it or soaked it in, pay attention. Making games is a BUSINESS. The purpose of a business is to make MONEY. Most devs don't have a high amount of investable capital to spend limitless time making games to utilize a consoles power to the best of the game's ability. It costs money to do so. "Laziness" has nothing to do with it. Unlike doing chores around your house, it costs money to put more work into a game. Especially with time deadlines involved.

So lets weigh in on reality here. The 360 currently has a larger user base. It likely costs less to dev for the 360. The dev kit for the 360 allows you to share much of the dev work with the PC platform which can allow you to do a PC release with relative ease and less cost if you choose. By contrast, the PS3 has a smaller userbase. It is generally harder to optimize.

But to answer your question as to why devs put out a crap port? Well, if they feel sales of the port on the PS3 can justify the projected cost of porting the game to it, then it makes financial sense to do so. Any businessman looks for a return on their investments. Porting a game is relatively easy. If there is more money in developing a new title than optimizing for the PS3, then it would likely be a better business decision to move on to another project.

And if you are telling devs to stick with the 360 if they won't utilize the PS3's power better,then consider what games you'll be left with...

[twistedsymphony]

From what I've heard from developer friends working on both platform the the approaches from the two companies to help 3rd parties with development are something like this

Xbox 360
Great tools, great documentation, open help lines, and confrences to help them better understand the technology. And upclose and personal discussions about the best way to do things when desired.

PS3:
the bare minimum of tools and essentially useless documentation, no real direct support but Sony likes to point out examples in their own games to "prove" that things can be done as their form of "encouragement"


In essence if the two companies were training 3rd parties to run a marathon

Xbox 360: gives them new running shoes, a case of Gatorade, a gym membership and assigns a personal trainer.

PS3: They drive along side them and shout: "Keep up CHUMP!"

Of course this is hear-say but I've never heard anything but praise for MS's development tools and documentation, and I've heard more than the lions share of complaints about Sony's tools and documentation.

All the power in the world doesn't mean JACK if you don't have the knowledge to use it or the tools to get it done on time.

It's not like 3rd parties don't WANT to have the best possible looking game. IMO if they're not getting the job done Sony isn't doing THEIR job as a platform provider.

If you develop hardware you can't expect people to just magically know how to get the best results out of it. you have to help them out, and the efficiency and quality of those programs is DIRECTLY related to how good your tools and documentation are.

[KaRiL]

Wow...you are quite naive. Every thread about "lazy" devs has posts like yours. And if you search for such threads, you'll find plenty of responses explaining rather clearly why devs make the choices they do. But since you haven't seemed to have read it or soaked it in, pay attention. Making games is a BUSINESS. The purpose of a business is to make MONEY. Most devs don't have a high amount of investable capital to spend limitless time making games to utilize a consoles power to the best of the game's ability. It costs money to do so. "Laziness" has nothing to do with it. Unlike doing chores around your house, it costs money to put more work into a game. Especially with time deadlines involved.

So lets weigh in on reality here. The 360 currently has a larger user base. It likely costs less to dev for the 360. The dev kit for the 360 allows you to share much of the dev work with the PC platform which can allow you to do a PC release with relative ease and less cost if you choose. By contrast, the PS3 has a smaller userbase. It is generally harder to optimize.

But to answer your question as to why devs put out a crap port? Well, if they feel sales of the port on the PS3 can justify the projected cost of porting the game to it, then it makes financial sense to do so. Any businessman looks for a return on their investments. Porting a game is relatively easy. If there is more money in developing a new title than optimizing for the PS3, then it would likely be a better business decision to move on to another project.

And if you are telling devs to stick with the 360 if they won't utilize the PS3's power better,then consider what games you'll be left with...

That's funny, I don't remember saying anything about "lazy Devs". I used the term "lazy" with regards to priorities (sorry to confuse you, but i'm gonna keep it real simple from here on K?) The PS3 is obviously a lower priority for companies like EA if they are willing to release a gimped version of their game on it. I understand the economics of the decision, but they can't blame Sony if they were not willing to spend the time/money on optimizing the game.
As a consumer I can totally understand a business decision made by a company, and still disagree with it, if it affects myself and others negatively.
On the other hand companies can (and do) make technically bad business decisions (billion dollar warranty extension) to make consumers happy
anyways, the point of the story(which you somehow missed) and the point of my reply (which you also missed) is that responsibility for a poorly made game rests with the people who made it.

[zero129]

That's funny, I don't remember saying anything about "lazy Devs". I used the term "lazy" with regards to priorities (sorry to confuse you, but i'm gonna keep it real simple from here on K?) The PS3 is obviously a lower priority for companies like EA if they are willing to release a gimped version of their game on it. I understand the economics of the decision, but they can't blame Sony if they were not willing to spend the time/money on optimizing the game.
As a consumer I can totally understand a business decision made by a company, and still disagree with it, if it affects myself and others negatively.
On the other hand companies can (and do) make technically bad business decisions (billion dollar warranty extension) to make consumers happy
anyways, the point of the story(which you somehow missed) and the point of my reply (which you also missed) is that responsibility for a poorly made game rests with the people who made it.

Maybe if Sony didn't make a console that's so damned hard to program for then PS3 owners wouldn't have to be worrying about bad ports so i put the blame on sony.

[CKwik240]

That's funny, I don't remember saying anything about "lazy Devs". I used the term "lazy" with regards to priorities (sorry to confuse you, but i'm gonna keep it real simple from here on K?) The PS3 is obviously a lower priority for companies like EA if they are willing to release a gimped version of their game on it. I understand the economics of the decision, but they can't blame Sony if they were not willing to spend the time/money on optimizing the game.
As a consumer I can totally understand a business decision made by a company, and still disagree with it, if it affects myself and others negatively.
On the other hand companies can (and do) make technically bad business decisions (billion dollar warranty extension) to make consumers happy
anyways, the point of the story(which you somehow missed) and the point of my reply (which you also missed) is that responsibility for a poorly made game rests with the people who made it.

If I misunderstood the intent of your message then I am sorry. However, you still put blame on the devs when they are approaching this as a business. And while you acknowledge and perhaps appreciate that these devs are making business decisions, your statment would then appear somewhat one-sided. Wouldn't a business such as Sony, be more inclined to help themselves to success by helping their partners who can ultimately determine the ability for a console to succeed? While devs certainly hold the ultimate decision as to how much of a console's potential they decide to use, shouldn't Sony make more of an effort to try and create an environment where the devs can make a reasonable profit for their efforts? It would probably be an easy decision if the PS3 had a 100 million strong user base, but this is far from the case here and they are, in fact, behind a very competetive console whose manufacturer is being far more aggressive in providing devs with a formula for success. I tend to feel that Sony needs to be more involved in the success of the devs.

For Sony to succeed, the devs that develop for the PS3 need to be able to succeed. This concept is foreign to a lot of corporations actually. Create reasonable goals and workload for your employees, give them the proper tools to achieve them and you'll likely have a recipe for success. If all your employees succeed, chances are the company will succeed. Unfortunately, many companies are more like, give the employees unreachable goals, no tools, and then dump a lot more work then they can handle. If they can't hack it, fire them. And when this occurs, your employee turnover rate tends to be high. The relationship between devs and Sony (or any console manufacturer) is similar. In the same way, the corporation has more control of the situation than you seem to realize...

[KaRiL]

If I misunderstood the intent of your message then I am sorry. However, you still put blame on the devs when they are approaching this as a business. And while you acknowledge and perhaps appreciate that these devs are making business decisions, your statment would then appear somewhat one-sided. Wouldn't a business such as Sony, be more inclined to help themselves to success by helping their partners who can ultimately determine the ability for a console to succeed? While devs certainly hold the ultimate decision as to how much of a console's potential they decide to use, shouldn't Sony make more of an effort to try and create an environment where the devs can make a reasonable profit for their efforts? It would probably be an easy decision if the PS3 had a 100 million strong user base, but this is far from the case here and they are, in fact, behind a very competetive console whose manufacturer is being far more aggressive in providing devs with a formula for success. I tend to feel that Sony needs to be more involved in the success of the devs.

For Sony to succeed, the devs that develop for the PS3 need to be able to succeed. This concept is foreign to a lot of corporations actually. Create reasonable goals and workload for your employees, give them the proper tools to achieve them and you'll likely have a recipe for success. If all your employees succeed, chances are the company will succeed. Unfortunately, many companies are more like, give the employees unreachable goals, no tools, and then dump a lot more work then they can handle. If they can't hack it, fire them. And when this occurs, your employee turnover rate tends to be high. The relationship between devs and Sony (or any console manufacturer) is similar. In the same way, the corporation has more control of the situation than you seem to realize...

I'm not putting blame on devs, just responsibility.

fact is, return on investment is not going to be as great for PS3 as it is for the 360 right now. If the money was there, these Devs would be putting the effort/time/money in, simple as that.
Remember the PS2? it was also very difficult to work with, but it blew up, the install base was huge, you could release a solitaire game that sold 250,000. guess what the developers did....STFU and got to work.

Now, as much as these devs don't want to release a crap game, I'm sure Sony doesn't want them to either.
if their tools suck, its not because they want them to suck on purpose, in fact I've heard that they made huge efforts compared to what they did with the PS2
to use twisted's example:
its as if MS was Nike, and Sony was GM, sponsoring a marathon runner
where Nike works with athletes, makes shoes, clothes etc...
and GM can just get you from point A. to Point B.

Sony's control over third parties is this: they sell them permision to make games(license) sell them dev kit, give them tools, (whatever they have) make sure the final product actually runs, and thats about it. If Sony had any control over a company do you honestly think they'd let them release a game for PS3 thats inferior to the same release on 360??
if you are going to hold business decisions as infallible(not my opininon) then you can't blame Sony when they had no part in making them.

Why is it that EA can on one hand release an inferior version of Madden 08 for the PS3 and then Delay the PS3 release of Medal of Honor to make sure its on par with its 360 counter part??
because, you have a choice when it comes to world war 2 shooters
you want a licensed football game on the PS3? there's only one...
don't mistake corporate greed for some kind of failure on Sony's part.

[CKwik240]

I'm not putting blame on devs, just responsibility.

Semantics

The PS2 is a different beast. It had a huge user base that devs could almost be guaranteed a profit from (And likely a good profit margin at that) even if they sold to a small percentage of users. PS3 does not currently enjoy that advantage. Sony made just as much of a choice in determining how to build this current console, how many tools to develop for it, and how to support devs. Based on Tretton's statement, it sounds as if Sony is pointing fingers trying to displace balme rather than working with devs to resolve the issues. What business incentive does any dev have to develop for the PS3 right now? Especially if they have to risk a large investment to try and maximize a game's experience? While you can philosophically call it a choice for devs, there are very few businesses that are going to call losing money a choice.

As for a sports game, I would imagine that they want to release them yearly. So basically, they are limited by a time constraint. Other titles may not be as limited. Any delays in a sports game release will take it's toll on getting started for the next year's game. And since it appears to be an ongoing thing, they will have a chance to apply what they learn to the next year's release.

Now, as much as these devs don't want to release a crap game, I'm sure Sony doesn't want them to either.
if their tools suck, its not because they want them to suck on purpose, in fact I've heard that they made huge efforts compared to what they did with the PS2
to use twisted's example:
its as if MS was Nike, and Sony was GM, sponsoring a marathon runner
where Nike works with athletes, makes shoes, clothes etc...
and GM can just get you from point A. to Point B.

Of course Sony doesn't want their tools to suck. But intent means almost nothing in the business world. Results do.

Not sure the analogy you're trying to make with the Nike/GM thing.

[Sweeet]

In a nutshell, if Sony gives 3rd partys the tools they used to create Killzone 2, then the gaming world would be a better place indeed.