PS3 version of Orange Box might be 'downright unplayable'
We feel for you, PlayStation 3 owners. We really do. No, we're not knocking the scrappy, gargantuan console - we literally feel bad about the system's history with game delays. Not just delays on PS3 exclusives, like MGS4, Haze and Home, but the games that other platforms have been enjoying the company of for a while. When we PC and 360 owners sit down to enjoy the frivolous exploits of Gordon Freeman in The Orange Box, we feel pangs of guilt for enjoying the bounties which you have not yet received, like we're eating a 40 oz. rib-eye in the middle of a welfare soup line.To add insult to injury, and then to pour a salt and lemon juice cocktail into said injury, the PS3 version of Orange Box has received the developmental shaft, according to a recent preview on 1UP. While the PC and 360 versions of the game were largely managed by Valve, the PS3 version was apparently the responsibility of a team at EA. This has led to a number of framerate hiccups and other technical issues which "at best merely hinder game play and at worst make the experience downright unplayable."
Gabe Newell, Valve's co-founder, has never been a huge fan of the PS3, calling the system "a waste of everybody's time." Let's hope that the issues facing Orange Box are just small oversights, and not the results of a software tycoon's maniacal personal vendetta. (We think it's the first one, for what it's worth.)
[Via NextGen]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 10)
deaftly @ Nov 25th 2007 11:38AM
Thank god i have an Xbox 360 also, jesus
Dan @ Nov 25th 2007 12:47PM
I hate to say I told you so... but this is what happens when you let EA near code of any kind.
Sure their marketing and promo departments are great, but they don't know jack sh!t about making games.
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 25th 2007 1:22PM
Gotta agree with you, Dan.
If EA really wants to know why they are NOT making money on PS3, they need only look at their current practices. Majority of their ports often run worse on PS3. They take no extra steps in catering the games to PS3 (as in, why doesn't Homecourt, a 3 on 3 basketball game, not support six players when PS3 can support 7 controllers). And often, they are downright deceptive in their practices.
The EA logo has become something of a warning label for PS3 games since launch. If they truly want to start making money on the console, they need to start taking the extra steps. But then again, this is EA we are talking about after all. The very same company that released a full years worth of crap games once and blamed Sony and their PS2 for the lack of sales during the same season GTAIII was doing incredible.
Van Faulk @ Nov 25th 2007 1:43PM
@dan
I suppose it was also EA's fault for their lackluster Saturn development. Throughout history we have seen something very simple. If you make a console really hard to program for, companies will either ignore it altogether or make bad games for it.
Which should EA do, spend 3 extra months making a cruddy port less cruddy for a statistically small userbase that buys very few games, or spend those months polishing the version that WILL sell?
I didn't hear anyone crying when devs abandoned the Saturn of the 64 for the exact same reasons they are turning away fomr the ps3. If sony was too stupid and arrogant to see this coming when they themselves directly benefited form it for 10 years, then they have only themselves to blame. And instead of blaming devs...how about blaming sony for making a system no one can work properly. How about asking for dev support like MS has been handing out since day one?
KHCloud @ Nov 25th 2007 1:49PM
@ Van Faulk
I know several programmers that are programming for the PS3 and say it is not hard at all. The problem is when a programmer takes the exact same code from the 360 and tries to make it work on the PS3. That's why most of those complaints coming from people trying to port from 360 to PS3.
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 25th 2007 2:04PM
Van Faulk, I really have to ask you where you get your lack of information....
"I suppose it was also EA's fault for their lackluster Saturn development. Throughout history we have seen something very simple. If you make a console really hard to program for, companies will either ignore it altogether or make bad games for it."
But here's the kicker you don't seem to understand. VIDEOGAME DEVELOPMENT IS FUCKING HARD. There is no magic "make awesome game" command in any systems API. And the Saturn being compared to the PS3 is hilarious, really. Saturn had aspects just chucked in last minute (read:3D). PS3 did not. Now, is PS3 hard to dev for. Yes, but so is 360 and Wii. And as Mark Rein said, PS3 is not that much more difficult to develop for. Sentiments that were repeated by Bethesda, Codemasters, Ubisoft, InfinityWard, and even Kojima (who owns a 360 dev kit). Some developers will get their shit together and see decent sales. Others will not.
"Which should EA do, spend 3 extra months making a cruddy port less cruddy for a statistically small userbase that buys very few games, or spend those months polishing the version that WILL sell?"
Actually, how about choice C. You know, the one where the fucking developer of Half-Life 2 handles the porting for PS3 like they did 360 instead of pandering the project off to some idle studio somewhere? The PC and 360 versions of Orange Box were not even developed in the same country as the PS3 version. HOW FUCKING INSANE IS THIS? I mean, has this tactic ever worked? Most Wii efforts say "no" but I'm sure there is a project out there somewhere that stands as the model scenario otherwise developers would stop doing this. Also, buys much fewer games? Dude, PS3 userbase, right now, only has a .8 smaller attach rate than 360 had during it's time of their life.
"I didn't hear anyone crying when devs abandoned the Saturn of the 64 for the exact same reasons they are turning away fomr the ps3. If sony was too stupid and arrogant to see this coming when they themselves directly benefited form it for 10 years, then they have only themselves to blame. And instead of blaming devs...how about blaming sony for making a system no one can work properly. How about asking for dev support like MS has been handing out since day one?"
Umm, Sony has always had a policy of sending out their engineers to developers that need it. Or do you think a $20,000 development kit bought you a handshake and assrape? A vast majority of the tools and tricks Sony has discovered on PS3 is currently available to developers as the oh so oddly named Playstation Tools. And frankly speaking, considering you have Guerilla Games giving out all their trade secrets about Killzone 2, you'd think more multisystem ports would turn out better. But nope, not when lazy developers take the helm. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to supporting InfinityWard.
Noshino @ Nov 25th 2007 2:48PM
like sheppy said, not only they send out their engineers, but all, and I mean ALL of their developing studios share their codes/findings.
I can't find all of the links right now, but I can recall Santa Monica studios, Insomniac, Incognito, and even Naughty Dog stating that they share their codes...hell, even Naughty Dog, they mentioned that they had to completly change their programming language to an standarized one.
I can also recalled InfinityWard and Epic talking about Sony sending their engineers to help them out..
Hell, (Im going to get basehd for this) out of the 3 companies, sony is the one that offers the MOST flexibility FOR DEVELOPERS
bobartig @ Nov 25th 2007 4:38PM
@Dan: Bullshit. No large developer/publisher pushed harder for PS3 than EA, and they got royally bit in the ass. I was at EA during the development period leading up to the PS3 launch. EA was all in. EA had great engineers working on PS3 development and it didn't pay off. The lack of PS3 sales caused such a large income drain that it affected other projects as well (having to cut engineers from games that were never slated for PS3).
The result is that EA has a lot of developers familiar with PS3 development, but that it just doesn't pay off to release games on the platform. Here you are blaming EA for the PS3 port when Valve's team CAN'T/WON'T even do it!
Grey Fox @ Nov 25th 2007 4:54PM
@bobartig
Like you said it isn't profitable to make a port for PS3 so why are you so angry at Valve for dodging that bullet?
Marc Federico @ Nov 25th 2007 5:06PM
exactly. sony fanboys step back and listen without flaming up a storm. gabe newell is a brilliant developer. he obviously knows what hes talking about when he created steam and the half-life franchise. the playstation 3 IS a waste of time for developers because they have to write code for a cpu that will not ever be useful / reusable in any other platform. 2ndly, the return for all the development time is not there, as playstation games sell horribly compared to their ds/wii/xbox 360/pc counterparts. this is fact.
SharpBlade @ Nov 25th 2007 5:24PM
@Sheppy:
"Dude, PS3 userbase, right now, only has a .8 smaller attach rate than 360 had during it's time of their life."
Where did you get this idea? .8 smaller?? Please lay off the kool-aid.
James @ Nov 25th 2007 5:26PM
It's called "La Boite Orange" In Quebec.
It ****ing pisses me off. I hate living here it's like Assimilate or die. >.>
Noshino @ Nov 25th 2007 5:58PM
Marc Federico,
so is, IF NOT MUCH MORE, John Carmack....he was all complains about the PS3, but then it turned into praise, so your point?
If Mr Newell is that good, why not prove it by at least developing the game for PS3 and offer AT LEAST a decent port...or is it that he doesn't have pride?
Him alone didn't create Steam or the HL series, it was a team, so giving him sole credit for it is just bull...
A fact? well, how many games for the PS3 have been out there? how many of Sony's great franchises have games for the PS3 out there? How many of Xbox franchises have been released? what about Nintendo's?
Think about what you say, it might come back to bite you in the ass...
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 25th 2007 6:16PM
SharpBlade,
During 360's first October... it's attach rate was 4.2. PS3's attach rate in October was 3.4. Thus, the difference is .8. Wow, I guess Sinbad was right. Math is everywhere.
deaftly @ Nov 25th 2007 7:33PM
thanks for filling up my inbox guys, jerks
Superstar90 @ Nov 25th 2007 9:08PM
@James
HEY, HOW ABOUT YOU MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T SPEAK FRENCH! It's like saying, "I hate living in Italy, everything is Italian!"
B1gC72 @ Nov 25th 2007 10:09PM
well im going to throw in the vicious cycle argument.
the PS3's architecture is too different from its counterparts for developers to just slap the 360's code in and call it a day. im an admitted Sony fanboy, but this all falls on Sony for their arrogance coming into this generation. they felt that they could ride the PS2 express and do whatever they wanted. so the high price coupled with the programming difficulties of the console led to a low attach rate and buggy games respectively. so with these early mistakes by Sony, the only way for this problem to be fixed is for Sony's first party developers to make games that sell well. this will hopefully renew interest in the console for the third party devs and as we all know, Sony has no problem with the sharing code between developers.
i love my PS3 but it is a long shot. hopefully when the big titles are FINALLY released (Killzone 2, FFXIII, MGS4, Little Big Planet, Haze, and UT3 as long as its 360 counterpart isnt released by then) coupled with their new, more realistic, pricing plan, Sony can move some consoles. here's to being optimistic.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 26th 2007 11:49AM
BicC72, thats exactly how Nintendo had to adapt for the N64 and gamecube.
If it must be that sony must adapt their software development to keep PS3 afloat, then so be it. We as gamers will be better off for it, because we'll have 2 huge 1st party developers that create AAA games consistently.
ulovemikeroch @ Nov 27th 2007 11:55PM
Boo hoo ps3 sucks cpu , ram processor LOL!!! Shut up. Your comment was really really worthless and not helpful in any way. You know whats a fact? That you're worthless and no one wants you here.
Penguin Warlord @ Nov 28th 2007 4:54PM
@James
It's called that in all of Canada, not just Quebec. It's not that hard to figure out. I don't think that La Boite Orange could be any easier to figure out, basic french isn't that hard to learn.
hvnlysoldr @ Nov 25th 2007 11:38AM
"D'OH!!!"
Get over it @ Nov 25th 2007 11:38AM
hahahahah
Van Faulk @ Nov 25th 2007 11:39AM
I seem to recall sony fans going on about how the Orange Box was maxing out the 360 because it was so weak...
I call this poetic justice. Of course this, like any problem involving the ps3 will always be someone else's fault.
wait in the car @ Nov 25th 2007 11:49AM
Considering your last line, I love Jeff's comment precisely one minute later. Excellent.
Chainblast @ Nov 25th 2007 12:50PM
Fan-boys are blind no matter side of the fence they graze on. What one has to remember is if studios like Infinity Ward, Epic Games or Insomniac can produce functional and well made software on the PS3 other developers can too.
That said I wouldn't attribute the state of the PS3 Orange Box to lazy developers. What I would say is that Valve pawned-off development to EA whom "awarded" the project to a studio which probably didn't have the resources or knowledge to handle a game like this on the PS3.
If I was going to blame anyone for this disaster of a game I would point my finger at both EA and Valve for obviously not giving a shit. Publishers, developers and gamers sit and bitch over and over again about the state of the PS3, but with asinine shit like this why would anyone be happy? In other words these people hypocritically complain about a problem they're contributing to. You may your own bed, so to speak.
Jeff @ Nov 25th 2007 1:02PM
Not gonna lie, I laughed when my post went through and I saw that. =P I still stand by it, though.
Rayonic @ Nov 25th 2007 2:53PM
With ANY console, there will be times when a publisher will say "Hey, lets port over our very expensive game to that system." If your console can't make that easy or affordable, then it has failed.
Expecting EVERY game to be developed or co-developed on your console is arrogant and unrealistic.
Slaziman @ Nov 25th 2007 6:00PM
Hey Joe, if you wanted the best graphics, you should've bought a PC!
Jeff @ Nov 25th 2007 11:40AM
Dev laziness. This is not the fault of the ps3. All of those games are fairly easy to run on even an old POS computer.
ukickmydog (NDF - Earth) @ Nov 25th 2007 12:10PM
but i thought the ps3 was a supposed "supercomputer"?
ukickmydog (NDF - Earth) @ Nov 25th 2007 12:11PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/06/09/ps3-add-on-hdd-to-run-linux/
read the first line of that article and see what krazy ken thinks about it
Fernando Rocker @ Nov 25th 2007 12:18PM
But it has the Cell!
The graphics should be in 4D and should be like a Pixar film.
Ahh, I see the poblem.. it has less memory tha the 360, a slower drive. Well, at least it gives you High Definition graphics out of the box... oh, wait... it doesn't include HD cables.
Fernando Rocker @ Nov 25th 2007 12:51PM
Joe
You sound like the guys from www.n4g.com, the most uninformed and idiotic webpage in the entire gaming world.
Maybe you should go there...
Trev @ Nov 25th 2007 12:54PM
Less memory.
360: 512 memory shared between cpu and gpu
PS3: 256 memory dedicated to the cpu, 256 memory dedicated to the gpu. 256+256=512. Same amount of memory
Slower drive.
PS3 uses a CLV drive while the 360 uses a CAV drive. The transfer rate of a CAV drive is measured at the outer most ring of data on the disc, and does not represent the overall transfer rate. Its much slower on the inside of the disc and discs are written from the inside out, so all those 360 games that easily fit on a DVD may never reach the "faster than PS3" loading speed.
The PS3's CLV drive has a constant transfer rate for the whole disc.
The 360 has a higher maximum transfer rate if the game used to test completely fills the DVD, but the average transfer rate is higher for PS3.
Jeff @ Nov 25th 2007 12:58PM
It's true though. You console bastards need to step out of your fanboy costumes and admit it: while the ps3 is a helluva lot harder to develop for, it is the more powerful console. I'm not saying I wouldn't vastly prefer a 360, due to games, live, etc. Developers are just learning how to develop for ps3... and some just suck, apparently, at challenging themselves and trying something new.
Some, like Infinity Ward, Bethesda, and Epic know their fucking programming and can do it right. Others seem to take no pride in their work, and not mind releasing a POS for ps3, knowing that it will get blamed on the console and not affect their credibility. And all the first party devs can certainly craft something mighty pretty... *longs for Uncharted on PC*...
ukickmydog (NDF - Earth) @ Nov 25th 2007 1:04PM
much of your post shows exactly WHY the ps3 is failing this gen.
look at that cell processor only being utilized 30%
you think that's good? it's not really, it's just showing that that piece of technology was completely needless, but sony wanted to shove it down everyones throats along with a premium price.
Also, price isn't everything, i bought a 60 gig shortly after release, but i returned it quick, because there were no games and i already have a high def player, which was the only thing my ps3 was good for.
I DO believe that 360 should have come with a next gen optical disc format, but even then, is it really THAT hard to pick your ass up off the sofa and change a disc? no one was complaining back in the days of multi-disc final fantasies
really, if the ps3 had held off on some of this next gen stuff, and kept to the formula of lower prices and easier architecture, they wouldn't be in the rut they are now.
modified @ Nov 25th 2007 1:34PM
Our "fanboy costumes"? Last I checked you were the one making multiple posts defending your PS3.
meledeo @ Nov 25th 2007 1:39PM
And who knew fanbois couldn't make logical, rational arguments?
Oh right... it was me. I knew it.
ukickmydog @ Nov 25th 2007 1:49PM
dude, joe, calm the hell down and actually read the freakin post
where the hell did i say the ps3 will lose? in this war there isn't going to be any losers as long as sony wants to sink money into the playstation brand, which is in fact pretty lucrative.
i was a business major and know damn well that you need to invest money in order to make it. Sony invested the money but they went the wrong way when actually thinking about making the device. it is actually good when you have left over processing power, but for argumentative purposes such as yours, it impedes your argument. i promise you this, before this console cycle is over, there will be NO game that utilizes the cell's full power. no developer will want to spend the time and capital to learn how to develop for all the cores etc, etc, Unless it all follows sony's 7 or 10 (i forget which one) year plan, but who are they to dictate the gaming market?
i actually have a hd-dvd set in my room and both blu-ray and hd-dvd in our living room area, we kinda keep up with tech...another useless (rather big) $600 peripheral under my tv right now doesn't make much sense if it does the exact same thing i have 2 other things to do. that doesn't mean i won't buy a ps3 down the road either, it's just not worth it right now.
so please take the time to read and not sound retarded, i know it's hard, but try =D
SlyTheBoss @ Nov 25th 2007 2:19PM
Trev, get your fact right. Like you said, the 360 drive has a variable transfer rate. That rate is between 8 MB/s and 16 MB/s. Like you said again, the Blu-ray drive inside the PS3 has a constant transfer rate. That right is 9 MB/s. Guess which one wins on average?
Plus, every time the drive seeks to a new track, it must wait for the drive's spindle speed to stabilize so if the drive's head has to seek much to get the data, the drive's performance is going to suffer.
For a movie, this is no problem since the data is sequential but for a game... You understand now why devs have to put more than one copy of the data unto a Blu-ray disk, right?
Trev @ Nov 25th 2007 4:20PM
You need to use a weighted average to calculate the transfer rate. The 360 only gets 16MB/s on the outermost ring; you can't calculate it using just taking the average of 8 and 16 because 16 is the absolute peak value and only games that use every last bit of disc space will ever read that fast and then only for the little bit of data that's on that outside ring. You understand now why theoretical math != real life now, right?
SlyTheBoss @ Nov 25th 2007 4:26PM
Trev, ever heard of filler?
Hmm, no comment regarding the *theoretical* 9MB/S transfer rate of the PS3 Blu-ray drive?
Snatcher (MDF - Halo Ring) @ Nov 25th 2007 4:37PM
Joe,
Dont be an idiot. They only use 30% of the cell's "supposed" power because of their fucking memory bottleneck. How the fuck can a system output all of your beautiful real time CGI like graphics in 1080P with 256k of fucking video RAM? Dipshit.
Trev @ Nov 25th 2007 5:23PM
I think 9 is what it is, so it didn't need a comment. Not that it was theoretical when you mentioned it before. Then it was a fact because you did the other math incorrectly and were trying to use it as proof.
Repeated data or filler amounts to the same thing: putting info on the disc to reduce load times. If junk data filler is good, but you were trying to say repeated data is bad, then it's really not worth discussing this with you. I'm not wasting my time with double standards.
Farseer (GDI) @ Nov 25th 2007 5:46PM
@Joe
"when i state something logical, and get voted down, that says a lot about the stupidity of the readers"
You don't get voted down because people don't want to hear your logical statements. You get voted down because your posts are long, insulting rants that border on fanaticism.
Slaziman @ Nov 25th 2007 6:05PM
Hey Joe, if you wanted the best graphics money can buy, you should've gone for a PC!
Photorealistic CGI in real-time - thanks for your douche statement. Not even Crysis at max settings looks photorealistic, and PC's that can run that beat the shit out of the PS3.
SlyTheBoss @ Nov 25th 2007 6:23PM
Trev, like I said, 9 MB/S is assuming the drive is simply streaming. Add to this drive longer seek time due to the spindle taking time to adjust its speed and the practical speed is less than 9 MB/S. How much less? Enough for devs to put multiple copies of their data on disk so it doesn't seek too much...
SlyTheBoss @ Nov 25th 2007 6:30PM
I pressed Enter too soon. Trev, you're missing the point. The Blu-ray drive needs to have its data copied multiple time just to keep up with the lowest transfer rate of the 12x DVD drive of the 360! Add to this the filler space to move the most used data to the outer edge of the DVD disk and it blows the Blu-ray drives transfer rate out of the water.
One think I like about my PS3 (yes I have one) Blu-ray drive though is its quietness. It makes far less noise than my 360 spinning its DVD at max speed.
Zeus the God @ Nov 25th 2007 8:17PM
Jeff, while I respect most of your opinions, the PS3 is most certainly not a more powerful system.
Sure, it has the Cell, but that Cell has only a fraction of the general processing power that the 360 has. It has a maximum of 10% more performance on PHYSICS and AI. Thats MAXIMUM. But then again, games consist mostly of what? General code. Thats all just the miscellaneous stuff that the 360 chugs through as if its nothing, but the PS3 gets hung up on.
As far as graphics go, the 360 has this all the way, and only the PS3 retards (not all PS3 fans are retards, thats not what I'm saying- I mean fanboys) will say otherwise. The pre-R600 unified ATI chip in the 360 far outdoes the G70-esque chip in the PS3. Not only does the chip itself out perform, the bandwidth is also multiple times higher thanks to 10MB eDRAM that raises the bandwidth up to 256GB/s compared to the PS3's 51.2GB/s.
As far as RAM goes, the PS3 has an advantage. It has 256MB 3.2GHz RAM, but thats really just a marketing ploy, as what good is RAM with a super high speed, if the processors (CPU and GPU) can't utilize it?
All in all, the 360 is THE more powerful system. Its not that I'm a fanboy or anything, its that I look at the facts, and those, boys, are the facts.
Jeff @ Nov 25th 2007 9:05PM
Modified: LMAO! I'm a PC gamer and haven't bought a console since ps2 phat the year it came out. The fact that I'm defending the ps3 reflects how ridiculous things have gotten. You getting hearts for that level of wit makes it even more hilarious. I've clearly stated, in this thread, that IF I owned a console, it'd be xbox 360.
And Zeus: thank you for an argument that's actually an argument. :P I absolutely could be wrong, and I could hardly pull out the kind of facts that you just did. Personally, I don't think we'll know for sure which is more powerful until the end of the generation, when we see what is done on each. I was getting a bit testy in my previous posts. But, in my opinion, Sony is a better hardware company than Microsoft, and while some of ps3's features may not look that great on paper, the whole product MUST be a great piece of hardware. Cell was a huge risk for ps3 to take, not some marketing ploy. It doesn't cost as much as it does to manufacture because Sony likes losing money. (Apart from the screw-up in terms of using blu-ray) Microsoft, rather clearly, is the better software company, though, and in the gaming industry, that's what matters.