Ok got a question for you's about multi platform games

Johnmiceter

Johnmiceter

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2013
251
10
137
Australia
I think I know why they do this but it doesn't make sense.

Why do developers try and make both versions of consoles look the same and run the same ?

I was reading becuase developers want to sell as many as they can for both platforms. But if that is true, you would think they would push both consoles to their limits as much as they can, not be held back by another console so you got to make it look the same as the other version.

To me , this doesn't make sense, if someone owns say a PS3, and the 360 version looks better, I'm not going to rush out and buy a PS3 just becuase the 360 version looks a bit better. As long as the Ps3 version looks as good as it can and runs as good as it can I will be happy.

So if one console is more powerful then the other, why not take advantage of it as best you can ? It really is stupid that companies try and make 2 console versions as close to the same as they can. I would have thought if the games run and look as best they can on each seperate cosnole, then that is better then trying to make them similar looking when one console could look A LOT BETTER if they tried more.

It's like someone will buy a PC version of something because it looks better, why shouldn't people have the option of buying the better looking console version too ?
 
Diplomacy it's as simple as that. If your game looks and runs better on console Y than X then you end up with a bunch of pissed off system owners (see PS3 owners at the start of the gen). So to gain system parity developers will intentionally lower the game's spec to gain that parity.

Also you have to bear in mind that if developers release a game and it is vastly better on console Y then the platform maker X will start asking questions and may not want your games on their platform. So it's two fold here.

1. You don't want to piss off your audience on one platform and lose sales just to appease one set of owners.
2. You don't want the platform makers to start being dicks to you and hold up production on certification, patching, network tests etc...

Edit: I believe this gen MS had a parity clause and that the game must run and look the same on the competitors platform. (IIRC)
PC games have to be made to suit a range of hardware configurations and developers will use the PC version as a center piece to show off their game on, the console version is usually shown later on with some down grades. (see BF3 Console Vs PC)
 
Last edited:
So basically, you want the developers to start build up from the ground on per system in order to take full advantage of its powers? If so, then we all know that it'll cost more and time to do that. Personal, I do not think it's worth doing that (if I was in the position of the developer.) Because then, that'll mean the owner of whatever console will have to wait a bit longer for the version to arrive (probably will take months or even years). In business world, time-and-money is extremely important.
 
Smurfboy said:
So basically, you want the developers to start build up from the ground on per system in order to take full advantage of its powers? If so, then we all know that it'll cost more and time to do that. Personal, I do not think it's worth doing that (if I was in the position of the developer.) Because then, that'll mean the owner of whatever console will have to wait a bit longer for the version to arrive (probably will take months or even years). In business world, time-and-money is extremely important.
Click to expand...

Likely outcome is that budgets would skyrocket, sales wouldn't be enough to make profits, and we would end up seeing less games as dev's starting going under faster than they already are.
 
Smurfboy said:
So basically, you want the developers to start build up from the ground on per system in order to take full advantage of its powers? If so, then we all know that it'll cost more and time to do that. Personal, I do not think it's worth doing that (if I was in the position of the developer.) Because then, that'll mean the owner of whatever console will have to wait a bit longer for the version to arrive (probably will take months or even years). In business world, time-and-money is extremely important.
Click to expand...
Well aren't PS4 and Xbox1 using the same PC parts and are both basically PC's ?

All's they have to do is use the same PC engine they would for PC's ( I'm guessing that's what they will do next gen) and just use the features that each console has. It wouldn't be that much more effort to use PS4, DDR5 ram and PS4's extra power advantage as well as using Xbox1's cloud. As don't they have seperate teams for each console anyway ?

So each team just has to work with each consoles advantages, not try and get both versions as equal as possible, but do the best they can for each console and not hold back by just trying to get them looking similar.
 
Rule of economics, they're gonna make it for the easies/lowest platform first. No sense in spending gobs of time/money developing for the "more powerful" of multiple systems and then trying to backtrack and make it run on the lesser systems. Then there is the inevitable feather ruffling if that were to happen, besides that's what first party devs. are for.
 
BDaddyK said:
Rule of economics, they're gonna make it for the easies/lowest platform first. No sense in spending gobs of time/money developing for the "more powerful" of multiple systems and then trying to backtrack and make it run on the lesser systems. Then there is the inevitable feather ruffling if that were to happen, besides that's what first party devs. are for.
Click to expand...
Also, PC is most likely going to be the lead platform for the majority of multiplats, they will port them to consoles and optimize them for each one, but they aren't going to make 3 different builds, as you said it would be too much time/money and would not be worth it for them in the end, or the consumer most likely
 
I found this at a site, I wonder if this is true and wonder if it carries over to next gen as well ?

"Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available," it reads.
"If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."
Also a response from an anonymous publisher that I found interesting:
One representative from a publisher who wished to remain anonymous told Eurogamer Microsoft's policy blocks developers from taking advantage of other platforms' strengths.

"Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."
 
So what you're saying no matter which platform is more powerful, we're going to see the same thing regardless? Well then what is all this constant fighting back and forth all about then?
 
Johnmiceter said:
I found this at a site, I wonder if this is true and wonder if it carries over to next gen as well ?

"Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available," it reads.
"If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."
Also a response from an anonymous publisher that I found interesting:
One representative from a publisher who wished to remain anonymous told Eurogamer Microsoft's policy blocks developers from taking advantage of other platforms' strengths.

"Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."
Click to expand...

I had to laugh at that article. But then again Uncharted/LoU do look pretty darn good...
 
Z A C K said:
So what you're saying no matter which platform is more powerful, we're going to see the same thing regardless? Well then what is all this constant fighting back and forth all about then?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, I'd expect multi platform games to look pretty close on both systems. First party is where each system will shine. That's why all this stupid fanboy flamewar crap is so dumb...
 
BDaddyK said:
Pretty much, I'd expect multi platform games to look pretty close on both systems. First party is where each system will shine. That's why all this stupid fanboy flamewar crap is so dumb...
Click to expand...
True, true. What's crazy though if how small the percentage of games are that are exclusive. Sure, it's fine to get hyped over the exclusives on your console of choice, but at the end of the day the majority of the games you'll play in any given generation are going to be multi-platform games. I would at least think this would be true on average.
 
Wiseguy said:
Time & money.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...

I can understand this for previous generations but for next gen aren't X1 and PS4 very similar ? So if they are basically the same, why would it hurt to do a few cool things for one console it it doesn't take much more time.

To me it's more then time and money, because devs do try very hard to make both versions looks the same, maybe they spend more time and money doing this then they would if they took advantage of one consoles power.

For example if the PS4 was 50% faster, it wouldn't take much effort for devs to get to a certain standard, it would take more of their effort trying to get the X1 up to the PS4. It's like they aim for the lowest consoles specs and make the more powerful console just on par and nothing else. Similar to what I posted above.

I don't even know why Microsoft would even say that and who's to know what and if they are doing it again at the start of this new gen.
 
@Z A C K

True. I do think console exclusives help retain brand "loyalty" though. I think having Halo as a MS exclusive was what pushed me to get a 360 as opposed to a PS3. For the most part multi-plats are identical across all platforms, it's the exclusives that really shine and show what a given box can do. If you fall in love with a given consoles exclusives say it be the Gears, Halos, GoWs, LoU, KZs, your more apt to stay in the family to continue the journey.
 
Johnmiceter said:
I can understand this for previous generations but for next gen aren't X1 and PS4 very similar ? So if they are basically the same, why would it hurt to do a few cool things for one console it it doesn't take much more time.

To me it's more then time and money, because devs do try very hard to make both versions looks the same, maybe they spend more time and money doing this then they would if they took advantage of one consoles power.

For example if the PS4 was 50% faster, it wouldn't take much effort for devs to get to a certain standard, it would take more of their effort trying to get the X1 up to the PS4. It's like they aim for the lowest consoles specs and make the more powerful console just on par and nothing else. Similar to what I posted above.

I don't even know why Microsoft would even say that and who's to know what and if they are doing it again at the start of this new gen.
Click to expand...

Yes the PS4/XB1 have similar "off the shelf PC-centric" innards, however, that's where the similarities end. The OSs' are vastly different, memory configs/types are totally different, same with APIs etc, etc... That's where your going to be spending your resources, and a lot of the time the "most powerful" console doesn't have the largest install base. Dev/pubs are in the business to make money, they're going to go for the easiest route possible and the largest target audience.

I wouldn't put it past MS or any company to have some sort of clause like that, written or unwritten. They want to sell consoles/games, they have to make sure a game that is available on multiple consoles, will on their box, have the same content and features. Otherwise why would the consumer want to purchase their console? With budgets/risks being so big now developers really don't have a choice, a single console prolly won't bring them into the black. Generations ago system strengths were better utilized, like the SF/MK games in the 16-bit era, and even to a degree the Splinter Cell games last gen. It all comes down to money
 
Yep and MS does have plenty of money, so I wouldn't put it past them what they do or say.

Also things you read by devs these days, you wouldn't know if MS or Sony are paying them to say this or that about their console to make it sound better then it really is.

That's why I can't wait till next gen games start to come out so we can stop listening to all the crap people are saying and see for ourselves which is better :)
 
Johnmiceter said:
Why do developers try and make both versions of consoles look the same and run the same ?
Click to expand...
Lazy? Paid off?
Z A C K said:
So what you're saying no matter which platform is more powerful, we're going to see the same thing regardless? Well then what is all this constant fighting back and forth all about then?
Click to expand...
Esram vs gddr5?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back