EA 'tech. support' explains PS3 Madden frame rate issues
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Aug 14th 2007 at 9:10PM }
"Rob M." from EA Sports technical support says he understands gamers "frustration," but says that EA has been "developing titles for the Xbox 360 for over 3 1/2 years" and has only been working with the PS3 for over a year. He goes on to say it's "very difficult to get it right the first time." He goes on to say that that 30 frames per second is the same for all PS3 sports games, and they're happy to point out that the same holds true for 2K Sports as well. He finishes by saying that "if you choose not to purchase the [PS3 version], it is a choice [they] fully understand and respect." Definitely expect a little bit more ire about this PS3 Madden thing as people start making lists of all the issues.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Arno @ Aug 14th 2007 9:15PM
Har har.
spoo @ Aug 14th 2007 9:55PM
I blame Peter Moore.
;)
Tr0n @ Aug 14th 2007 11:13PM
It just goes to show how this industry really works. If you have a console that has decent sales figures attached to it and it is out first, then everything gets ported from that. Let's hope some developers learn their lesson and try to really understand the consoles architecture and push them to the limits.
obo @ Aug 15th 2007 4:45AM
"If you have a console that has decent sales figures attached to it and it is out first, then everything gets ported from that."
Sega says you're a liar.
Anonim @ Aug 15th 2007 7:08AM
EA- your port to PS3 simply su**. Like Madden 2007.
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3161872
"The PS3 difference.: Sadly, just like with NCAA Football 08 and All-Pro Football 2K8, PS3 owners are stuck with an inferior version of Madden. While the game runs at 60 frames per second on Microsoft's box, Madden only clocks in at 30fps on Sony's console. The result? The gameplay isn't nearly as smooth as the 360 version and even stutters at times (see the difference in this comparison video). And that's the reason why we're scoring the PS3 edition slightly lower."
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/812/812702p1.html
"For PS3 owners, this isn't as exciting. Madden 08 runs (sometimes) at 30 frames per second. It makes a huge difference, as you lose a lot of the subtleties in the animations. There are plenty of framerate hitches that will likely frustrate players. This can cause a lag in the Hit Stick sometimes. And, let's face it, no one wants to see a runningback pause for a second in mid air as the framerate stutters. You can still play and mostly enjoy Madden, but beware that on PS3 the game does not run smoothly."
"Closing Comments
Madden NFL 08 on PS3 is no a great game. It is a shadow of its cousin on 360. Though the feature set is identical, the drop to an unstable 30fps hurts considerably. The visuals and the gameplay suffer. If you are a real Madden nut and think you can fight through the framerate issues, Madden is an overall good game. It just doesn't run very well."
Strike Man @ Aug 14th 2007 9:18PM
"very difficult to get it right the first time."
Ah, well that settles it then.
Wait...he isn't talking about Madden 07?
phattie @ Aug 14th 2007 9:18PM
The real reason: if you want an NFL game you will buy Madden 08.. for 360, PS2, PS3, Wii, DS, PSP.. it dont matter to EA. The PS3 version only needs to be passable for a PS3 game.
Exclusive NFL license FTL!
Mike @ Aug 14th 2007 9:18PM
BURN!
Who in their right mind would buy a PS3?
Zeus the God @ Aug 14th 2007 9:51PM
The world may never know...
Matt B @ Aug 14th 2007 10:49PM
The people who don't trust the 360 hardware.
Jake @ Aug 15th 2007 8:27AM
Well, from my personal experience, people who want the bluray player or who are just loyal playstation fans.
Word Up, North Korea! @ Aug 14th 2007 9:21PM
well, I'm not going to buy it!
rdj75 @ Aug 14th 2007 9:24PM
I refuse to believe that crap, when the xbox came out, the ps2 had a pretty good headstart, but xbox games(including multiplatform) showed their superiority right off the bat. Now don't get wrong, there were some games on my ps2 that just blew my mind but typically with multiplatform games the lead development was the ps2, the xbox got the ports and it was still atleast marginally better than the ps2 version.
Its becoming increasingly difficult in showing my ps3 some love when it comes to some of these games, but I have a 360 as well so I am not losing out on anything. I am not a fanboy of any platform but please don't say the developers need more time to unlock the power of the cell, or whatever else that helps you sleep better at night. I know one thing if heavenly sword ends up sucking, we are going to have a problem.
Snukadaman @ Aug 14th 2007 9:50PM
you mean your a ps3 owner and your making sense. but really. Everyone expected superiority when it came too ps3 multiplatform games, but still almost a year in and theres a trickle of games that are just on par with the rest being off. And thats pretty smart too tell ps3 owners too just not buy the game, With low showings on NPD software numbers already concerning ps3 games, it will only be worst. Theres always next year?
rdj75 @ Aug 14th 2007 9:58PM
Yes I am a ps3 owner but let me explain. When the ps3 came out me and some friends camped out at bestbuy to get as many ps3's as possible. That morning I went home with about 8, thats 8 ps3's to put on ebay. I sold 7 for an average price of about $1200, so basically the people on ebay paid for the one I have now.
Under any other circumstances I probably wouldn't own a ps3 but it does make for a pretty good bluray player though.
Zeus the God @ Aug 14th 2007 9:58PM
Its not the game developer's faults. Its Sony's. Had the Cell technology been released to computers first and servers first, the Cell would be easier to program for. Thats not saying that Sony should have waited longer on the Cell, I mean they should have gone with a conventional processor, as the weak, pussy Cell they did put in there isn't much, not to mention a bitch to program for. If they would have gone with a conventional processor (cheaper) and upped the GPU, then they might have been able to have a more powerful system, that would be getting games, and would be selling, as it would likely be in the 400-500 dollar range, despite the Blu-ray player.
Its because Sony is a whore for being unique, and personally, I think they went too far adding in a Blu-ray player just to get Blu-ray sales up. If they would have gone with a standard DVD9 drive, they would have gotten faster loading times, lower production costs, and could release the same amount of content at a cheaper price (albeit two discs or more), but I don't get why people care about the storage space... I mean, you get more on a disc, but you have to suffer through hella long loading times.
Hashbrown_Hunter @ Aug 15th 2007 12:51AM
Actually Zeus I believe Sony when they say they are willing to help some developers with programming for the cell processor. It's true they could've gone with a conventional processor but to advance gaming as a whole, they felt they needed to take a risk. The cell is exceptionally good at extreme processing tasks (like Folding@Home) and it has proved to be a valuable investment.
Plus, if EA could just spend more time they could've easily made the game run at 60fps...but the only problem is that they are under a time limit.
So unless one company or the other does something about this, we'll be seeing some shitty ports to the PS3 for awhile.
Faisal @ Aug 15th 2007 1:08AM
The reason Xbox games looked better than PS2 was because PS2 was even a MORE difficult system to program for. PS3 is actually a bit easier to program for than PS2. Plus, the Xbox used a regular custom made Intel Pentium 3/Celeron CPU which made it easy for developers to code for since they already knew how to program on that type of CPU. Though Xbox did have crappy games at launch to with crappy looking games. In fact I remember both systems looking almost identical (with Xbox having a bit more better graphics). But in the end, it's all up to the developers. Many developers will always put the better game on the most selling system first. About Blu-ray, some people might say Blu-ray is not necessary, but games are already starting to show that more space is needed. UT3 for 360 has to be compressed and yet maps are still cut out while the PS3 and PC versions will have all the maps. Games like Resistance, MGS4, Lair and Heavenly Sword are already using over 20GB. Lair is already filling up a single layer Bluray and MGS4 will be using the new dual-layered blu-rays coming out this year. 360's and PS3's loading times are really around the same. Blu-rays actually have a faster transfer rate than DVD. But PS3's blu-ray drive is at 2x while 360's DVD-ROM drive is at 16x. So really it balances it out. Plus, Blu-ray is taking the lead over HD-DVD 2:1 and just recently, blu-ray STANDALONE players have outsold HD-DVD standalone players. I honestly though Blu-ray would fail. "Oh, another format by Sony, first Betamax, then UMD now blu-ray is gonna fail." But Sony was a bastard for including the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 and it drove the price up, but at the same time, giving us developers a lot of room for games. Think of it this way, almost every generation, storage space has gone up. NES cartridges had less than 1MB, SNES cartridges had around 8MB, N64 cartridges had around 128MB, Gamecube had 1.4GB and now Wii with 8.5GB. PS1 had 700MB, PS2 with 8.5GB, and now PS3 with 50GB. But with Xbox and 360, it's 8.5GB for both systems. This generation for the 360 is gonna be a bit difficult for developers to fit data onto it. It doesn't matter for Wii, because Wii will have rarely any games that equal to the quality graphics 360 and PS3 has now. So though, Sony might have gone on a slow start, when developers start realizing what the PS3 can do, they will jump on the bandwagon and start to push the PS3 to the limits (though I doubt they will, PS2 STILL hasn't reached it's full graphical potential, it's said it can produce better graphics than even the Gamecube).
Snatcher @ Aug 15th 2007 1:31AM
Faisal,
The problem for the PS3 will be that by the time the developers are on board and wil know what they are doing it will be too late for this generation. You have to wonder what SONY's strategy is for this generation. Will the next generation of videogames be the first where all of the primary competitors dont launch within a year or a year and a half of each other? It's exciting to think about. How would that affect peoples wallets and perceptions?
Lets say in 3 years Microsoft comes out with the new XBOX. Would Sony jump right in with them or would they ride it out with the PS3 until potential mass profitability? Will they try to upgrade the PS3 ala Sega 32X to try to compete with the new Microsoft system in order to stick with their 10 year plan?
I remember when SNES and Genesis were competing I thought gaming as we knew it would come to an end. Back in the NES glory days everyone had a NES. Every stinkin kid on the block. Nintendo Power, EGM, and Gamepro was the only news we had (pre internet). I oh so dearly remember hoping Quarterman would have some juicy news for us. Nowadays, Joystiq is my Quarterman.
rfom @ Aug 14th 2007 9:26PM
http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=91981
COD4: "Same level of AA between 360/PS3, both @ 60fps"
and
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2007/07/12/dirt-for-the-ps3-looks-fantastic-compared-to-the-360/
EA sucks, really. Thats all there is to it. Screwed up the Bond series and now this. I was really hyped up for Army of 2 but seems like will need to rein back expectations for all EA titles.
And thank god for Pro Evo.
rdj75 @ Aug 14th 2007 9:32PM
Just watch, some how, some way, the 360 version of CoD4 will be better.
Zeus the God @ Aug 14th 2007 10:01PM
I don't doubt that the 360 version will be better, even if its just online or even the controller. The PS controller isn't for FPSs.
Sircolby45 @ Aug 14th 2007 10:18PM
"The PS controller isn't for FPSs."
Couldn't agree more.
Matt B @ Aug 14th 2007 10:54PM
"The PS controller isn't for FPSs."
Ya that 3/8 inch between that 360 and PS2/3 right thumb pad throws it all off to and uncomfortable degree.
Hilarious.
copa @ Aug 14th 2007 10:57PM
"COD4: Same level of AA between 360/PS3, both @ 60fps"
That's very good news to know that the truly elite developers (Infinity Ward, Valve, etc.) can make the PS3 version of their game look as good as the 360 version.
But most multiplatform releases this year have been delayed for the PS3, and/or look worse graphically on the PS3.
I would expect more from the console that has a $200 price premium.
D dogg @ Aug 15th 2007 12:24AM
What the $200 extra premium from the PS3 gets you is the ability to watch Blu-Ray discs... didn't you get the memo at E3 '06?
Wes @ Aug 15th 2007 1:06AM
Hate to burst this guy's bubble but has he read the ps3 forum article he posted?
Its a rumor from a member claiming to be a developer. No actual evidence or official releases regarding 60fps minimum on the ps3. A rumor by a member claiming to be a developer who in his rumor uses the word 'crack-head'? Hmm. If you say so =).
Crack-head. Doesn't sound that professional. If I started calling all xbox 360 owners crack-heads, I'd sound more like a fanboy than an actual developer. Oh well, don't let that discourage this rumor and prevent you from posting it as fact.
Snukadaman @ Aug 15th 2007 1:28AM
geez wes...do you really got too point out reality or can this poor kid live his dream of maybe..roflmao
Snatcher @ Aug 15th 2007 1:40AM
Matt B,
The PS3 controller does kinda suck for FPS. The analogs are in an uncomfortable position. I remember I felt this way back when Timesplitters first came out on PS2. The 360 pad is perfect! Its a fact.
And yes 3/8th of an inch does matter. (Insert immature joke here.)
Lifted 0ne 4l9 @ Aug 14th 2007 9:31PM
of course 360 is a a better designed system performance wise, now if the can only fix it's stability issues, thankfully my 360 is still going strong knock on wood.
Zeus the God @ Aug 14th 2007 10:02PM
Same here. I have a mid-night launch console produced on October 12th, 2005, and not a single freeze or RROD.
I think its more on how people care for their console that gets them the RROD. Not just design flaws and such.
ill trooper @ Aug 16th 2007 8:46AM
Zeus, you're wrong, you lucked out and got a good one.
Many people treated their 360's with proper care and the thing failed. It's not up for debate anymore now that MS has returned out-of-warranty repair fees, extended the warranty to every console made so far, and ships out repaired boxes with additional heat sinks added.
BananaBoat @ Aug 14th 2007 9:33PM
PS3 has ninty thousand cores (or atleast that's the word on the street) ofcourse it's hard to program for. Xbox 360 is teh superiorz. Oh and Madden sucks, long live Blitz =P
muppetmeth @ Aug 14th 2007 9:35PM
Who cares! It's MADDEN! The frat boys, 30 year old men, and inbred teens are the only ones who need the new edition every year anyway. And chances are, they want Halo 3 too, so the 360 gets extra love anyway.
PS3, you're ugly. No one cares about MGS4 and the fact that you have a less than 1% failure rate. $500+ for you? I could get a mistress for that much money.
Matt B @ Aug 14th 2007 10:56PM
Please do and spare us.
Dirk Dorkelson @ Aug 15th 2007 12:27AM
What the hell do you have against 30-year-old men, you halfwit?
Sincerely,
a 31-year-old man who doesn't play Madden
Wes @ Aug 15th 2007 1:08AM
Matt B!!,
Don't tell him to get a mistress! There's a chance he'd procreate and there would be more of him.
muppetmeth @ Aug 15th 2007 2:06AM
Yeah, that guy sucks!
JJ @ Aug 14th 2007 9:38PM
I do love how EA not being able to make a good multiconsole game comes down to the PS3=Crap argument.
Strange that other multiplat games can look decent on both consoles yet EA cant seem to pull it off... cant be THAT hard to code for even with only a "year" of experience.
I hardly think Madden is the kind of game that pushes consoles to the limit
severian00 @ Aug 14th 2007 10:14PM
They may look similar, but every single multiplatform game that's been released on PS3 and 360 has been rated higher on the 360. It's not EA, it's the Cell processor. It folds fantastic but can't play games for crap. Everyone said there would be issues with the PS3's GPU and CPU architecture, shared ram that can't be fully used for graphics, so on and so forth. Now that you are seeing the fruits of all the negative spec talk people are saying, well just wait, you'll see. Guess what? We're almost a year in now and the games still look like crap. This time in the 360 lifecycle we were getting GRAW and Rainbow 6. Whatcha got for the PS3? Inferior ports and delays.
royce @ Aug 15th 2007 4:03AM
Actually it is the kind of game that pushes consoles to the limit. There are many more fully rendered characters on screen at one time in a Madden game then most games. Like it or not, Madden 08 is graphically intensive.
PsPEE @ Aug 14th 2007 9:39PM
Could this spell trouble for Sony, the end of Madden on the PS3?
This brings back memories of the Saturn vs Sony days. PS3 (like Saturn) is a hard system to develop for. That resulted in a lot of PS1 exclusives because PS1 was easier to develop for.
No matter how you spin it this is bad for SONY. Madden is the best selling game in America and is an important game for winning the console race.
If the sales for the PS3 Madden slump, then this is bad news for Sony...in America of course. Do you guys remember how EA sales on the Saturn were? awful! That forced EA to go with SONY.
Will XBOX360 be the console of choice for video-game jocks?
phattie @ Aug 14th 2007 9:42PM
"Will XBOX360 be the console of choice for video-game jocks?"
Isnt it already?
Jouten @ Aug 15th 2007 3:09AM
Absolutely.
YouFaceTheTick @ Aug 14th 2007 9:46PM
Am I the only one not surprised? An EA exec split for MS just this week:
"John Schappert, senior vice president at Electronic Arts Inc. and co-founder of EA Tiburon, has jumped ship in favour of a desk at Microsoft Corporation."
Wow, a founder of Tiburon - the guys who make Madden - and sr. vp at EA splits for a cushy job with MS and it just so happens the MS version of an EA game he was behind is superior to the PS3 version?
Coincidence?
Zeus the God @ Aug 14th 2007 10:10PM
No, not coincidence. Terrible R&D at Sony is what it is.
Jonah Falcon @ Aug 14th 2007 9:51PM
In a word: BULLSHIT. The first Madden for the 360 was pretty. It wasn't GOOD in terms of gameplay, but it was pretty and smooth.
Shagittarius @ Aug 14th 2007 9:53PM
I own the 360 version and I can tell you there are lots of occasions where the 360 drops well below even 30FPS. If the PS3 version stays at a rock solid 30FPS its the better version.
I haven't played the PS3 version so I cant confirm if the framerate is solid, all I can confirm is that it seems the 360 version often drops below 30 FPS.
Mal F4cti0n @ Aug 14th 2007 10:43PM
Either:
A. For some reason your 360 is processing at a slower clip then everyone elses?
OR
B. If you have a problem with the fps on the 360, you will be real pissed at the PS3 version.
If you read the reviews for the PS3 version on metacritic, a lot of the reviewers complain of slowdown, especially when compared to the 360's version.
Snukadaman @ Aug 15th 2007 1:35AM
honestly man i have been playing for about 2 hours and not one time i seen lag or even a hiccup...i think your about too be visited by the RROD my friend. Better order that coffin now.