DrunknMunky Veteran Posted February 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted February 3, 2008 "We're still experiencing some delay on the PS3," says EA boss Riccitiello, "It's a little bit more of a challenging development environment for us"Electronics Arts' PlayStation 3 development still hasn't caught up with that of Xbox 360, the company said during a conference call this morning. When asked if PS3 game development has caught up with the Xbox 360's faster dev cycle, EA CEO John 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. "Games where we led development on the PS3 platform, like Burnout, which is doing very well on the market today, we had no issue at all. "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. "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." Rockstar Games also admitted recently that technical problems with the PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV was a "contributing" factor in the game's 2007 delay. As Mr. EA notes, Burnout Paradise is a great example of a game running fantastically on both PS3 and Xbox 360 - and it was release day and date on both as well. If leading on PS3 is the answer, then do it we say. Andy Robinson Source: CVG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDQuiksilver Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Other developers seem to be catching on just fine. :sleep: Note to EA: have a seat over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shof Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 ea is always lazy, they dont know how to make great games (look at pro street compare to most wanted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiracyX Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I have to say EA are just pure lazy to be honest. The comment about Most Wanted and Pro Street is very true. If anything, they are getting more and more lazy each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green_Eye Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I think this has more to do with EA as a company then it has to do with PS3 development :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 3, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted February 3, 2008 (edited) The latest 1UP Yours podcast talks about this. They seem to think Sonys relations with EA have changed over the years - Listen to the podcast to hear what I mean. EA are obviously prioritising what console gives them most profit, but I do also think Sonys releations with EA, or at least certain studios within EA is not as strong as they used to be (would explain why some EA titles work at 60FPS/identical to 360, others aren't). Edited February 3, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Winkle Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 ea is mostly a turd factory these days, burnout paradise for all the raving is truly more of the same, unfortunately. it looks lovely, but it's a dull soulless game and you quickly tire of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Star Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 EA just sucks now, if Infinity Ward can do it then you can too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I don't think it has anything to do with putting one platform ahead of the other. I think it's just going to take some time to get used to programming for something that hasn't been out as long. It's always easier to do something once you've got more experience with it. As far as EA being lazy -- in programming? Really? Maybe in the area of support (following certain games being released) EA has been lazy, but the whole 'EA are evil monsters' thing is really losing the comedic value it once had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Winkle Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 i think it's fair to say that ea are lazy with regards to fresh ideas. they've been basically pushing the same half dozen tired franchises for years with little notable improvement, other than perhaps visul polish. that might ok for some people, for but for those who grew up with the ea brand it is all to apparent that the quality of their releases over the past 5 or 6 years has been going down. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 i think it's fair to say that ea are lazy with regards to fresh ideas. they've been basically pushing the same half dozen tired franchises for years with little notable improvement, other than perhaps visul polish. that might ok for some people, for but for those who grew up with the ea brand it is all to apparent that the quality of their releases over the past 5 or 6 years has been going down. . New franchises being created or funded by EA: Spore, Army of Two, Crysis, Facebreaker, Mirror's Edge, Boom Boom Rocket, Rock Band, Dead Space Now, of those, Rock Band is really the only one that's an unofficial sequel of any kind. All the rest are new. Now, tell me... go and look at Activision Blizzard or Ubisoft's games, and tell me how many are new franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas-c Veteran Posted February 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted February 3, 2008 the thing is, EA is a big name and people/companies that sort of size like to do it their way and not the way it should be (example: MS with IE6...) so small developers who want to make money and a good game will do it the way it should be done and not cut corners, however EA will do whatever is needed to be done to get it good fast, cheap and on time (yeah right) they dont care about quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Winkle Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 New franchises being created or funded by EA: Spore, Army of Two, Crysis, Facebreaker, Mirror's Edge, Boom Boom Rocket, Rock Band, Dead SpaceNow, of those, Rock Band is really the only one that's an unofficial sequel of any kind. All the rest are new. Now, tell me... go and look at Activision Blizzard or Ubisoft's games, and tell me how many are new franchises. army of two, crysis, mirrors edge, and dead space are all shooters. brand new franchises they may be, but they are all recycled ideas with a sub par plot. the only game in that entire list which is in any danger of having a new idea in it is spore. rock band looks quite fun with a few mates, but not my thing personally. facebreaker isn't all that original but it might be fun - will wait and see. with regards to the other studios you mention, activision blizzard and ubisoft, well they're not that different - an you get an odd treasure in the sea of mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 They Key thing EA Says here, and that is true, is that the dev tools for the PS isn't as good as the ones for the 360. And let's be honest here, EA is beign nice when they just say they haven't quite caught up. compared tot he 360 dev kit, the PS3 "dev kit" is like assembling on of those wooden model ships without instructions. They're not saying the PS3 is weaker or can't keep up with the 360, they're syaing developement on the PS3 is slower and harder compared to the 360. and ufnortunately Sony is more usy working on fancy home stuff instead of creating good dev kits. somethign that has been a problem for Sony ever since the first PlayStation, and something they seem completely unable to rectify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huleboeren Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I don't think it has anything to do with putting one platform ahead of the other. I think it's just going to take some time to get used to programming for something that hasn't been out as long. It's always easier to do something once you've got more experience with it.snip They Key thing EA Says here, and that is true, is that the dev tools for the PS isn't as good as the ones for the 360. And let's be honest here, EA is beign nice when they just say they haven't quite caught up. compared tot he 360 dev kit, the PS3 "dev kit" is like assembling on of those wooden model ships without instructions.snip I think its a mix of these two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 army of two, crysis, mirrors edge, and dead space are all shooters. brand new franchises they may be, but they are all recycled ideas with a sub par plot. the only game in that entire list which is in any danger of having a new idea in it is spore. rock band looks quite fun with a few mates, but not my thing personally. facebreaker isn't all that original but it might be fun - will wait and see. with regards to the other studios you mention, activision blizzard and ubisoft, well they're not that different - an you get an odd treasure in the sea of mediocrity. lol, so being an FPS means you're not trying fresh ideas? I guess being an RPG, RTS, simulation, etc. also means you're not trying fresh ideas :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danrarbc Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I think this has more to do with EA as a company then it has to do with PS3 development :/ You can think what you want. It'd be wrong though, considering this is what every multiplatform studio has been saying all along. EA is just more outspoken on it for some reason, my guess would be they feel they are invincible (which is the first step towards failure, thinking nothing can hurt you - a lesson Sony learned) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Makes sense the PS3 was released later.... A whole year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanHell078 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 There was a press release by SCEA that claimed that Sony has more game studios and developement than MS and Nintendo combined. I would love to be able to cite it for you all, but I can't. The basic claim is that Sony has a massive developement system. I have had my PS3 since launch day and have been more than thrilled by its selection of games. They have kept them coming. More games than any other system had near their launch, from what I recall, but I may be wrong. The PS3 has made huge advances in developement. They have created more tools and developement kits as time goes on. As far as EA goes, WHAT have they made for PS3 that was worth $60.00? I can't recall one single title that I would buy for the PS3. I own a Q6600/8800GTX/Vista 64 gaming rig and I enjoy Crysis, but they merely PUBLISHED that game. I don't think they have a lot to offer to me for PS3 thats worth my money. Infinity Ward as somebody above mentioned, has made a knockout title with COD4, and thats the type of quality I want to pay for. Madden? I love football, but the game is a basic concept rehashed till' it is dead. EA is slow to impress me on any platform. They managed to make my wish list with Crysis, but even that game has it's drawbacks for many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 ^^^You have 4 posts and you've already discredited yourself by making a decently huge claim and not being able to cite a source for it. If it were true, and trust me on this, we would've heard about it on this board already. Not to mention press releases are always citeable so there's no reason you can't. OT: I've gotta wonder if this is one of the few drawbacks of releasing early. It seems like developers are more worried about catching the PS3 up that they temporarily neglect continuing innovation and power squeezing on the 360 itself until the PS3 is caught up. I'm willing to bet there's a lot more that can be drawn out of the 360 as well as the PS3, but devs don't seem to want to go ahead until multi-platform games can both proceed with that innovation at the same rate on both consoles (which is probably more practical for MP devs, but still a hindrance for the 360 itself). Though I'd also have to say, as of late, it does seem like EA's taken a liking to downplaying the PS3 for no particular good reason. -Spenser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts