Ghostbusters on PS3 lags behind 360 version; developer explains
by Christopher Grant 
on Jun 17th 2009 5:15PM
276
Richard Leadbetter – Director of HD consultancy Digital Foundry and author of Eurogamer's multiplatform comparison Face-off features – tweeted that playing Ghostbusters on the PS3 was like "time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development." Ouch! That's especially painful to read considering the high hopes Terminal Reality – developers of the just-released Ghostbusters game – have for their multiplatform Infernal Engine.
Internet reports of a less-than-stellar PS3 version of the title originated at Lens of Truth on Monday, were later corroborated by Gamezine.co.uk and, following tomorrow's publication of Leadbetter's most recent Face-off feature, will be further corroborated by Eurogamer. Confusing the issue even further is the following quote from Terminal Reality's Mark Randel, who told VG247 last year, "We're one of the few developers who love the PS3 and have a great time with it. We have great technology for the PS3 and we want to show it off."
Instead of leaving it up to internet Matlocks, we asked Terminal Reality to comment on the controversy. A spokesperson for the developer told us, "For the record, the PS3 version [of Ghostbusters] is softer due to the 'quincunx' antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but we managed to squeeze 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3."
So: is the PS3 "maxed out"? Or is Terminal Reality's engine – despite comments to the contrary – just not up to snuff on the PS3? With most recent multiplatform titles performing comparably, if not identically, on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles, we'd be inclined to agree with Mr. Leadbetter: it's like "time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development" when PS3 games were routinely outperformed by their Xbox 360 counterparts. Let's hope the irony of the situation is lost on Ghostbusters' exclusive European publisher ... Sony. As well as the franchise's owner ... Sony Pictures.
Source – Head2Head: Ghostbusters
Source – @Digital_Foundry
Reader Comments (276)
Posted: Jul 6th 2009 12:56AM (Unverified) said
I once had a 360 and it's crap coz u cant play long hours. Red lights start lighting up then boom, the console is Dead. Crap. If you are a gamer, you don't keep your console, you play them and play them for hours. Crapy overheating and if you suggest aircond, that is for me not the console. Where I live and how I live I don't need aircond 24/7. Argue whatever you want but reliability is what I like best. I'm now using a ps3 and at least I don't have to worry whether it crashes like most microsoft products (Crappy unreliable). Peace ppl
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 1:57AM BootlegZani said
I haven't been this much of a fanboy since Genesis vs SNES days.
Posted: Jun 20th 2009 11:37AM (Unverified) said
haha..i'm just laughing what the developers are saying,someone saying that ps3 cell processor are more powerful than xbox 360,so why xbox 360 game graphics is still better than ps3,it's almost 3 years of ps3 now,why they can't still use the true potential of ps3?and xbox 360 graphics still wins until now,all the games they compared 360 wins,search to google,there is developer saying 360 is more powerful than ps3,i think so,co'z 360 graphics is better than ps3.this is not a fanboyism,i own both console,i'll just stick to the truth,seeing is believing, developers are sayin this and that then why they can't prove it,and make a game for ps3 that look like the game of 360.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 3:54AM (Unverified) said
I am a 360 fan.
HOWEVER, it seems very obvious to me that in this case the developer is the one at fault for the poor graphics, not the PS3. There are simply too many games that are high quality and indistinguishable to try and build some fanboy case off of this.
As far as "potential", I do believe that in 3-4 years games that come out on PS3 will be capable of better graphics AND performance than games that come out on 360. I think the PS3 does have the potential and that the longer they work at it the better they will look, and that the 360's more straightforward design will hit some limits at some point and not be able to keep up.
BUT, IMO it just doesn't really matter. By the time we get to that point, we'll be ready for new consoles. If Sony's ambitious design decisions cause the machine to take years longer to reach it's potential and causes it to launch a year later, it seems to me that MS made the better choice (though this is obviously much easier to see in hindsight).
For me, the graphical differences between the two will never be great enough to make much of a difference. I prefer the 360 for what I feel is a better thought out set of hardware (obviously excluding the reliability issues which are a shame, but I far prefer the controller, the add-on keyboard, and the general look of it to PS3) and a MUCH better thought out set of OS functions (MS makes things standard whereas Sony leaves more things up to the individual devs to implement... music replacement, parties, anti-aliasing, copy ANY game to HD, no mandatory installs, achievements from the start and in every game, no wacky PITA half thought-out motion controls to deal with, etc).
BUT, I can certainly see that people looking for a game/movie machine combo would have found PS3 very attractive for a time when it was introoduced. Nowadays you can get better Blu-ray players for $250 though and they are much more efficient and nicer to look at (and hear) while playing movies.
Anyway, these are just my opinions... people like what they like, and there's certainly nothing drastically wrong with PS3. Just a lot of minor things in MS's favor that I think add to the 360 experience. Specs-wise I believe they are near enough to equal to make the comparison not very meaningful.
HOWEVER, it seems very obvious to me that in this case the developer is the one at fault for the poor graphics, not the PS3. There are simply too many games that are high quality and indistinguishable to try and build some fanboy case off of this.
As far as "potential", I do believe that in 3-4 years games that come out on PS3 will be capable of better graphics AND performance than games that come out on 360. I think the PS3 does have the potential and that the longer they work at it the better they will look, and that the 360's more straightforward design will hit some limits at some point and not be able to keep up.
BUT, IMO it just doesn't really matter. By the time we get to that point, we'll be ready for new consoles. If Sony's ambitious design decisions cause the machine to take years longer to reach it's potential and causes it to launch a year later, it seems to me that MS made the better choice (though this is obviously much easier to see in hindsight).
For me, the graphical differences between the two will never be great enough to make much of a difference. I prefer the 360 for what I feel is a better thought out set of hardware (obviously excluding the reliability issues which are a shame, but I far prefer the controller, the add-on keyboard, and the general look of it to PS3) and a MUCH better thought out set of OS functions (MS makes things standard whereas Sony leaves more things up to the individual devs to implement... music replacement, parties, anti-aliasing, copy ANY game to HD, no mandatory installs, achievements from the start and in every game, no wacky PITA half thought-out motion controls to deal with, etc).
BUT, I can certainly see that people looking for a game/movie machine combo would have found PS3 very attractive for a time when it was introoduced. Nowadays you can get better Blu-ray players for $250 though and they are much more efficient and nicer to look at (and hear) while playing movies.
Anyway, these are just my opinions... people like what they like, and there's certainly nothing drastically wrong with PS3. Just a lot of minor things in MS's favor that I think add to the 360 experience. Specs-wise I believe they are near enough to equal to make the comparison not very meaningful.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 12:26PM Ashitaka said
"BUT, IMO it just doesn't really matter. By the time we get to that point, we'll be ready for new consoles."
Yeah, it doesn't matter TO YOU, but to all the PS3 fans it obviously does. If at the end of the PS2 cicle we got FFXII, MGS3 and GoWII, I can't even imagine what we'll get at the end of the PS3 cicle.
"I far prefer the general look of it [xbox] to PS3"
If you like plastic boxes.. The PS3 looks much better next to other stuff you might have in your living room. But again, these are our personal opinions, so it doesn't really matter -_-'
"no wacky PITA half thought-out motion controls"
Better that than nothing (like the 360, I dare to say).
"Nowadays you can get better Blu-ray players for $250 though and they are much more efficient and nicer to look at (and hear) while playing movies."
1. More... efficient? And what would that mean?
2. I didn't know there was a kind of people that looked at their blu-ray players while they're playing movies. Maybe you're the only one?
3. What about 'hear'? The PS3 doesn't make a sound! You wish that the 360 was as quit as the PS3.
4. So you think that buying a 360 + $250 blu-ray player is better than simply buying a PS3?
Okay, I get it, this is just IYHO but huh.. no. Just no.
Reply
Yeah, it doesn't matter TO YOU, but to all the PS3 fans it obviously does. If at the end of the PS2 cicle we got FFXII, MGS3 and GoWII, I can't even imagine what we'll get at the end of the PS3 cicle.
"I far prefer the general look of it [xbox] to PS3"
If you like plastic boxes.. The PS3 looks much better next to other stuff you might have in your living room. But again, these are our personal opinions, so it doesn't really matter -_-'
"no wacky PITA half thought-out motion controls"
Better that than nothing (like the 360, I dare to say).
"Nowadays you can get better Blu-ray players for $250 though and they are much more efficient and nicer to look at (and hear) while playing movies."
1. More... efficient? And what would that mean?
2. I didn't know there was a kind of people that looked at their blu-ray players while they're playing movies. Maybe you're the only one?
3. What about 'hear'? The PS3 doesn't make a sound! You wish that the 360 was as quit as the PS3.
4. So you think that buying a 360 + $250 blu-ray player is better than simply buying a PS3?
Okay, I get it, this is just IYHO but huh.. no. Just no.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 3:59AM prodigy69 said
chase167 please shut up
I have never owned a 360 as I have a ps3 so please take your fanboy comment and go away.
cheers
I have never owned a 360 as I have a ps3 so please take your fanboy comment and go away.
cheers
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 5:01AM lookhappy said
Is this genuine? I watched the comparison video on gametrailers and the difference really was not as big as this makes it out to be.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/360-ps3-comparison-ghostbusters/51637
I think perhaps people's setting to screenshot / taking videos are making these comparisons totally pointless!
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/360-ps3-comparison-ghostbusters/51637
I think perhaps people's setting to screenshot / taking videos are making these comparisons totally pointless!
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 6:04AM (Unverified) said
I'll never understand why anyone would try to make comparisons on a much lower quality video. If you can't compare it at close to the original resolution then you're obviously not going to see minor differences in texture quality and whatnot, right?
Not to mention that while the video is in motion you are also not likely to see minor differences.
Those comparison videos just seem silly to me. If it's worth comparing them at all then it's worth comparing them in full res screenshots.
Reply
Not to mention that while the video is in motion you are also not likely to see minor differences.
Those comparison videos just seem silly to me. If it's worth comparing them at all then it's worth comparing them in full res screenshots.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 6:17AM MaliceMajorE15 said
wait for the digital foundry face off on eurogamer, the GT comparison vids are no good.
Reply
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 6:25AM lookhappy said
I've never trusted Eurogamer articles to be honest. I do read and watch them, but only when bored. They're ok, just not my preferred place to get news and reviews from
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 7:51AM SunnyXnsanity said
jeez, even LBP looks better than this.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 8:50AM Cyro 117 said
Dude seriously. WTF ?! Shut up man!
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 9:03AM (Unverified) said
this one is easy for the ps3 rgb is on limited making it looked washed out. thus making the textures not look as lively and colors
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 10:04AM (Unverified) said
As a consumer you really need to research before you buy.
I've been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I was planning to buy the PS3 version as it was the lead SKU.
However, the IGN review from June 10 told a different story. PS3 had worse graphics, and requires installation, yet doesn't improve load times over 360.
I bought the game on day 1, for the 360, and couldn't be happier.
Research your purchases FTW.
It still blows my mind that Ghostbusters was lead SKU on PS3 yet looks so much worse than the 360.
I've been looking forward to this game for awhile, and I was planning to buy the PS3 version as it was the lead SKU.
However, the IGN review from June 10 told a different story. PS3 had worse graphics, and requires installation, yet doesn't improve load times over 360.
I bought the game on day 1, for the 360, and couldn't be happier.
Research your purchases FTW.
It still blows my mind that Ghostbusters was lead SKU on PS3 yet looks so much worse than the 360.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 10:39AM Chibi Chaingun said
I wanted to actually get this on PS3 as kind of a "combo deal" w/ the new Ghostbusters Blu-Ray (why didn't Sony do an official package deal?), but after this news... It's 360 version for me. On IGN they said the differences were to a smaller degree, but that picture is enough for me to make my decision. :\
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 10:55AM (Unverified) said
I have it for ps3 and it doesn't look like that pic
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 12:15PM (Unverified) said
noooooo
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 12:22PM RKN said
What took you so long to post Sprinkles??
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 12:28PM (Unverified) said
(I might go on for awhile, to save yourself time I'm blaming the developer for this embarrassing display of ineptness)
I'm not going to debate whether or not the Xbox or PS3 is the better console.
Let's get beyond that and think about something else for a moment.
This is a multiplatform title. I don't care which system imposed limitations, as a developer it's your duty to make the game appear the same on every console it is being developed for.
When other developers have done it, this is just a clear example of shoddy work from a developer.
When one looks at exclusives, it's VERY clear that exclusives look and perform better than their multiplatform counter parts.
I understand that people may not want to buy both a 360 and a ps3, but lets be honest... If there was an exclusive worth owning it may be enough to warrant console sales. Think back to the glory years of gaming, how many people bought a PS2 just for (insert exclusive here).
As a poor college student with $15 to my name, I can honestly say I would rather have a long list of high quality exclusives for each system, then "75%" multiplatform games.
I'm sorry, but all fanboyism aside this is absolutely unacceptable.
People need to stop judging the hardware based on the lazy, greedy mentalities of the developers.
I'm not going to debate whether or not the Xbox or PS3 is the better console.
Let's get beyond that and think about something else for a moment.
This is a multiplatform title. I don't care which system imposed limitations, as a developer it's your duty to make the game appear the same on every console it is being developed for.
When other developers have done it, this is just a clear example of shoddy work from a developer.
When one looks at exclusives, it's VERY clear that exclusives look and perform better than their multiplatform counter parts.
I understand that people may not want to buy both a 360 and a ps3, but lets be honest... If there was an exclusive worth owning it may be enough to warrant console sales. Think back to the glory years of gaming, how many people bought a PS2 just for (insert exclusive here).
As a poor college student with $15 to my name, I can honestly say I would rather have a long list of high quality exclusives for each system, then "75%" multiplatform games.
I'm sorry, but all fanboyism aside this is absolutely unacceptable.
People need to stop judging the hardware based on the lazy, greedy mentalities of the developers.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 12:30PM Ashitaka said
What's so insulting in saying psTRIPLE instead of PS3?
Well, it doesn't even matter. 'Stupid is who stupid does'.
Well, it doesn't even matter. 'Stupid is who stupid does'.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 4:07PM (Unverified) said
Don't read this article. Basically, it seems that they just couldn't be arsed with the PS3 version which is why it doesn't look as good as the 360 version. So next time you seem a game that doesn't look, doesn't play as good as the 360 version, then you know why. And the 2 consoles are virtually on par with each other so there's not going to be much of a difference. I think all this sort of stuff is quite sad. If you're a true gamer and you can afford it, buy all the console out there and enjoy your games. Yeah, you might have a fave consoles out of the lot of them but that's no big deal.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 2:41PM TOYBOXX said
Games for the PS3 is definitely under developed. When you look at the time and money spent on research and development of the PS3, it'll be quicker to produce games for the 360 because of the easy dev kits and it's profitability. So obviously some scaling will deminish because of it. After all by now everyone has an Xbox compared to PS3. Plus from what I've seen recently on the PS3 is that Sony is trying so hard to become profitable again that PSN suffers. It feels like I'm playing online with the PS2 all over again.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 3:50PM (Unverified) said
Okay, lets start off by saying I am indeed a PS3 fanboy. I'm not necessarilly a Sony fan....for other reasons.....but I have always been a Playstation fan. However, I am always a gamer first. As a PS fanboy I will admit the 360 does have some awesome features I wish the PS3/PSN has. I would happily own a 360 if it wasn't for the RROD/reliability issues. Thats it. But, this isn't the point of my post. I've read every single post in the this thread and I want to bring up one issue most have breezed by. It irritates me when people say the PS3 is difficult to program for. Well guess what, whenever new technology comes out, there will always be a steep learning curve for it. That doesn't mean that new technology is bad, just different than current technology. This is how it's supposed to be. If developers bitch and complain about how hard it is to program for the PS3, it says to me they are lazy and want to make a cheap, easy buck. Incompetence always breeds excuses and we see that here with this Ghostbusters game. I'm a HUGE car guy and I grew up in the age of carburaters and mechanical drivelines. Now, we have computers controlling everything on vehicles. It was VERY hard for guys like me to make the leap from old style technology to digital technology, but once we understood that new technology, we discovered all the wonderful things we could do to make more power from our cars!! Thats the point exactly. Just because something is new and hard to understand/use doesn't make it bad. All the PS3 exclusives proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The PS3 is hard to develope for because IT IS NEW!!!! Do these developers think making games will always be like it is on the PC/360? Do they think it will always be easy? If so, the are in for a bad future for sure. New technology is always hard to understand and produce. Thats the name of the game. Innovation comes at a cost and it's not always priced in money. Time and effort have to go into it or else you get Ghostbusters for the PS3. Learn to embrace new technology or else die a slow, painful death.
Posted: Jun 20th 2009 11:23AM (Unverified) said
Actually when developers moan that the PS3 is hard to develop for it IS Sonys fault.
If you are releasing a console today, its your job to have a good development kit that makes your job, as a developer, as easy as possible.
Long gone are the days when you had to code for the specific chips in the console writing in assembler. Its called progress, standards and APIs. Microsoft from day one tied the Xbox into the same development environment that the PC used, its APIs are based on DirectX and the original Xbox was even a standard PC design based on the nForce 2 chipset, a Intel Celeron and GeForce 3. (granted, they were tweaked OEM versions, but as far as a developer cared its a tweaked PC)
When they switched to a slightly less PC like hardware for Xbox 360, they still allowed fairly easy programming. Just like how I can write the same app on Windows and port it to my Windows Mobile phone with very little work.
So then Sony come along and made the PS3 a PITA to code for. Why? Well so that they could pull a PS2 and have games gradually tap the power over many years, so they did not have to release a new console as soon. But they did not count on the Xbox 360 which could tap the power more easily and is still improving to some extent.
You can blame the developer all you want, but why would any developer bother to spend MORE money writing for one console than it costs on another? Only if they are going to make more money back on that console, which sadly is not the case. So there are very good reasons why some PS3 ports are poor and its all down to money. Sony caused this situation due to being so sure that PS3 would be more popular than Xbox 360 that they took a risk and made the PS3 a steep learning curve. It was all so that the games would gradually be better and better as developers learnt the hardware, a pretty poor excuse IMO.
Reply
If you are releasing a console today, its your job to have a good development kit that makes your job, as a developer, as easy as possible.
Long gone are the days when you had to code for the specific chips in the console writing in assembler. Its called progress, standards and APIs. Microsoft from day one tied the Xbox into the same development environment that the PC used, its APIs are based on DirectX and the original Xbox was even a standard PC design based on the nForce 2 chipset, a Intel Celeron and GeForce 3. (granted, they were tweaked OEM versions, but as far as a developer cared its a tweaked PC)
When they switched to a slightly less PC like hardware for Xbox 360, they still allowed fairly easy programming. Just like how I can write the same app on Windows and port it to my Windows Mobile phone with very little work.
So then Sony come along and made the PS3 a PITA to code for. Why? Well so that they could pull a PS2 and have games gradually tap the power over many years, so they did not have to release a new console as soon. But they did not count on the Xbox 360 which could tap the power more easily and is still improving to some extent.
You can blame the developer all you want, but why would any developer bother to spend MORE money writing for one console than it costs on another? Only if they are going to make more money back on that console, which sadly is not the case. So there are very good reasons why some PS3 ports are poor and its all down to money. Sony caused this situation due to being so sure that PS3 would be more popular than Xbox 360 that they took a risk and made the PS3 a steep learning curve. It was all so that the games would gradually be better and better as developers learnt the hardware, a pretty poor excuse IMO.
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 4:01PM (Unverified) said
Fanboy-ism is annoying. The solution is easy for me, I will get it for 360 or PC because this games looks better on these systems.
There's no need to bash the PS3 for its graphics. It's pretty ignorant on the fanboys' part. They know that the PS3 is very capable graphic-wise, because with the constant E3 coverage they should have seen Uncharted 2 and GOW 3 footage...
There's no need to bash the PS3 for its graphics. It's pretty ignorant on the fanboys' part. They know that the PS3 is very capable graphic-wise, because with the constant E3 coverage they should have seen Uncharted 2 and GOW 3 footage...
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 4:04PM Shoti said
I'd feel lucky that I got the 360 copy, but then again, the game isn't very good no matter what copy you have...
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM