Turbine: Easier to develop MMOs on the Xbox 360 than the PS3
by Kevin Kelly 
{ Sep 19th 2009 at 2:30PM } 
Here's the logic:
- The Blu-ray drive on the PS3 is actually slower in seek and access time than the DVD drive on the Xbox 360. Once the Blu-ray gets up to speed, it can handle large amount of data. Just not in seeking and accessing, which is a pain for streaming when you're playing something like an MMO.
- The memory architecture is different. When you're dealing with main memory, you work with "256ish MB" on the PS3 vs "512ish MB" on the 360.
- The tools aren't as friendly on the PS3. That includes the performance monitor tools, the debugger tools ... everything.
- Migrating a project from the Xbox 360 to the PS3 is much harder than moving from the PS3 to the 360.
There's more. Read on, Macduff.
Gallery: AGDC09: Turbine talks consoles
After a brief history of the MMO from the 1980s to the present, Alexander claimed that the fifth generation of MMOs will be MMOs on consoles. He pointed out that the MMO took ten years to mature on the PCs, and using history as a guide, he thinks that MMOs will revolutionize the console in the same way they helped grow the PC. It's been a long time since the graphical MUD Shadow of Yserbius came out in 1992, up to 12 million subscribers in WoW today.
He mentioned that Fable 2, Fallout 3, and Oblivion have all sold more than three million copies each, and that PC titles rarely ever hit that level. So why not develop MMOs for consoles? Alexander calls them a superior MMO platform. "It's the 360 and the PS3 where we really finally have the hardware and the storage capacity to develop what we consider more traditional MMOs with lots of content ..." Sorry Wii owners, "The hardware in the Wii more closely resembles the previous generation than the current one. It's just not there yet."
Turbine's goal is to create MMOs for the consoles that look as good as Fable 2 and Fallout 3, but are also as good as the best MMOs. Can they pull it off? He presents a strong argument, as did Valve in 2008 who presented a similar panel. If you want to see the slides from that presentation you can download them right here. But as with any project, we'll never know until we play it. We noticed Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in the audience, so it's possible we'll see a minor MMO boom on the consoles in the next couple of years. Stay tuned.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 2:36PM
Hmm, then get off you asses and make more 360 MMOs if its easy, because as I see it now, the logic doesnt click when MMOs keep popping up on the PS3.
Solace @ Sep 19th 2009 2:40PM
Live is the problem isnt it? Also who's going to pay $50 for Live and on top that "X" amount of money for a MMO online subscription. Not many people. Casual players will say it's so expensive and hardcore players will most likely have a PC.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Sep 19th 2009 2:42PM
At least the Xbox360 has Huxley.
Right?
RIGHT?!?!
Zsavior @ Sep 19th 2009 2:43PM
I think because all these companies care about Is porting their offerings. You see if the game is mediocre or just ok if they can get first early adopters they still win, as long as it is on two different consoles they make a health amount back. Porting is the name of the game.
reversecycology @ Sep 19th 2009 2:43PM
You don't have to be paying Gold to play these MMOs with fees. You can play them while you're on the free Silver account.
Jono @ Sep 19th 2009 2:47PM
It's okay, we all know the PS3 is the better console. It has [good] exclusives.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 3:03PM
Hm, maybe they could make the 360 MMO versions free to play :D They loose out, but hey, I gain ^^
FF11 takes the piss though, pay for live, pay for FF11 subscription each month, pay for each new character added to account, pay for air, pay for taxes, pay for your life.....
Isaac @ Sep 19th 2009 3:58PM
Haha! So what I'm seeing here is... He says that everyone who develops on 360 first is retarded because just doing the PS3 first is smart.
I'm also seeing a little hateraid - I hope everyone does know that reading blu-ray is a lil different the DVD reading. DVDs don't allow you to really leave space between each section of the disc where new data is stored. Blu-ray discs leave you plenty of opportunity, you just have to develop that into your game and into yoru disc writing. The larger the space in-between, the faster the game stuff will load. Look at the new Guitar Hero 5, songs load faster on PS3 on Blu-ray than 360/Wii on DVD. Why? The spacing on the BD is optimal for reading. Yes at current, first gen BD players read slower than current gen DVDs, look at how old the technology is. CDs and VCDs were a lot faster to write to than DVDs when DVDs first came out. The difference was, people were willing to do DVD because it was a better techonology with more space and more flexability once you figured it out. Same with BDs and writing to BDs, once you figure how develop properly, you realize you're in a much better place, like Neversoft did with GH5 and they did with LBP, and Treyarch with COD WaW. IW has there had stuck too far up their behinds to not be 360 jacklegs. (I own both, but prefer my PS3.) But we are seeing an influx of devs going straight for PS3, it may be harder, but the tech has more potential. And, I'm still looking forward to SONY making split BDs. They are half PS3 games/half Movie discs. Since scaling the games back to DVD size leaves enough room for a movie to be put on a Blu-ray Disc (BD). So you buy, Wanted the game, and you get Wanted the Movie on the same disc. Beautiful concept.
Gun Barrier @ Sep 19th 2009 4:00PM
you can play ff11 with a free silver account on the 360. Not many people know that though.
sleepydumbdude @ Sep 19th 2009 4:05PM
Same with Phantasy Star. I don't consider it a real mmo but you don't need gold to play it online just the monthly fee.
Markez @ Sep 19th 2009 4:54PM
"He says that everyone who develops on 360 first is retarded"
¬_¬
Extinction @ Sep 19th 2009 5:15PM
Seems more like they are saying its easier to start on PS3
johnnynumber5 @ Sep 19th 2009 5:37PM
He's saying the PS3 is more complex and it's easier to port from the more complex architecture to the more traditional architecture that the other way around. This is pretty much in line with what developers have been saying for a while now. Start on the PS3 and both version benefit.
As for PS3 MMOs - They do have a lot of them in the pipeline but until we get to play them we won't know about execution. Some people would argue that MAG is technically an MMO and some people say it's not.
Fane [A-MF Brigade] @ Sep 19th 2009 6:10PM
The one feature they're overlooking is that the PS3 has mouse and keyboard support, not that any developers (except Epic) are using it.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 7:00PM
MAG is an MMO, theres 16 player multiplayer, then there's 256, theres a vast difference. If it isn't considered one, I'd like to know why.
cloud858rk @ Sep 19th 2009 8:42PM
@Maverick
If I'd had to come up with a reason, it's because it's not persistent. Maps change from match to match, as opposed to a world that's always there.
BlaqueBeird @ Sep 19th 2009 9:11PM
To me it seemed he's saying that the PS3 is the system to start on because it's inferior, based on the comparisons he gives. Blu_ray is worse, there's less memory, and the PS3 tools are harder to use. If you start on the 360, it might not work on the PS3, because of these issues, but if you start with the PS3, then you know it will work just fine on the 360, because there are less limitations.
Avatar @ Sep 19th 2009 9:30PM
@Fane
They overlook the mouse and keyboard support because that's what computers are for. As soon as PS3 games use the mouse and keyboard, all you have is a shitty computer that you can't fix or upgrade.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 10:57PM
@ cloud858rk
Then the term 'MMO' is either wrongly used or inconsistant because I've seen it used for pc sports games and racers. There is also the fact it specifies 'Massively Multiplayer' which really has nothing to do with the length of time one is in a world for, but more towards the fact that a massive amount of people ar playing together in one place, one virtual world is being shared.
DeepFriedSushi @ Sep 20th 2009 12:59AM
@BlaqueBeird
actually you're right but i feel like ps3 owners just hate to hear it. you always start with the lowest denominator because its much easier to port afterwards.
LameDuck @ Sep 20th 2009 3:00AM
Just FYI for all the tards in this thread: You do NOT pay for Live AND for your MMO subscription unless you want to play for Live. You can have FF or PSU and just XBL Silver.
But, as always, if 30-50 dollars a year is too expensive, maybe you should find another hobby. I got 3 years payed up on my XBL for 90 bux thanks to Amazon. But I'm not a tight-ass, I'll pay for something that deserves it. I'd pay for PSN if they would fix all the stuff that annoys me on the PS3. *CROSS GAME CHAP PLZTHX!*
mahouneko @ Sep 20th 2009 5:40AM
@Maverick:
Actually, that's a good question. Why does Insomniac stick with Sony through thick and thin?
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 20th 2009 7:04AM
@ mahouneko
I'm guessing its purely because of the high levels of support they get from Sony, the fact they have been in a good relationship with Sony for years now, the fact they sit right next to other Sony studios so can get help and advice pretty easily regarding PS3 development, the fact Sony pampers them with deals and help to keep hem on board, the fact thier games do well or relativly well enough for them to stick with Sony, the fact they are first to get glimpses of new tech and new dev software, so yeah, theres quite a number of reasons. If I were them I's stick with Sony too. If I were 2K or Activision on the other hand, I'd stay multiplat. :D
mahouneko @ Sep 20th 2009 12:22PM
Lol. Good thing that Insomniac isn't the only studio that thinks like that.
bm @ Sep 21st 2009 4:38AM
DeepFriedSushi: What you're saying it true indeed, more often than not ps3 fans have this image of their console being the ultimate in power (just wait till x comes out that will suddenly look 10x more awesome than anything the 360 could do!!!), and will violently deny the fact that it's really just kinda mediocre.
reversecycology @ Sep 19th 2009 2:41PM
Not only the 360 is easier to develop for, MS are easier to work with as they give you the right tools while Sony just leave these devs on their on with the PS3 foreign architecture.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Sep 19th 2009 2:45PM
You make that sound like a bad thing. They basically throw the tech at the studios and say "have at it".
From what I understand it is the perfect situation for studios like Naughty Dog and Insomniac (and most recently Sucker Punch) who prefer to work together on their titles. Game developers no longer need to be secluded to their dark rooms.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 3:01PM
Actually Sony is well known for working alongside the developers that are commited to them, just the same way Micro does, thus the reason why more and more devs are willing to make excellent games for PS3 as opposed to when it first released. Its nintendo that leaves the devs in the desert.
reversecycology @ Sep 19th 2009 3:03PM
What do Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, etc. all have in common? They are first party and very well funded by Sony. Sony will give them all the money they need and give all the time they need (thats why most of these exclusives are delayed and takes so long to come out). Sony only takes care their own while they leave the entire other gaming developers to fend for themselves to develop games on the foreign PS3 architecture. This is not the first developer to beep about Sony. And this is why you'll never see something like Indie Games on this PS3.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 3:09PM
Huh? Media Molecule is first party? Since when? WTF? Insomniac is first party? Right....lets get a few things straightened up.
Insomniac and Media molecule are third parties, they seem like first parties because (HA! Which goes against what you said!) they have built up a good relationship with Sony and simply prefer to make games for Sony. Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch and Guerrilla are the only ones you mentioned that are owned by Sony.
As for your statement, Konami? Activision? 2K? What happened to them? As far as I know they've all worked just as closely with Sony as they did Micro, all third parties. What about Tecmo? Koei? Sega?
Someone needs to do some research, tut tut
skyzbig @ Sep 19th 2009 4:36PM
I think you need to do some research there, Maverick....Sucker Punch isn't owned by Sony.
P @ Sep 19th 2009 5:12PM
skyzbig,
What you just contributed only strengthens Maverick's argument, and weakens reversecycology's.
So, thanks.
Fane [A-MF Brigade] @ Sep 19th 2009 6:15PM
Technically, any developer which is independently-owned but working under contract for one of the Big Three (e.g., Insomniac) is second-party, not third-party.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Sep 19th 2009 6:52PM
Forgot about sucker punch tbh.
But yeah, while they are second parties, Insomniac isn't exactly tied to the contract, Resistance and Rachet are just owned by Sony. Nothing is stopping Insomniac from making a game for Micro as the developers have considered several times before.
MrXile @ Sep 19th 2009 2:42PM
Proof is there, even the MMO hardnuts believe its better (albeit, non-easier) to begin on the PS3.
I like people who like things hard! Give's you something to aim for.
(please, no gay jokes ^^)
:D
Sprinkles @ Sep 19th 2009 3:36PM
Thats just.. disgusting!
Autobot @ Sep 19th 2009 5:17PM
MMOs will always be Godly on PC and PC only.
JACK @ Sep 20th 2009 2:45AM
The name and the rep that is Sprinkles is disgusting.
Jawmuncher (PSN & XBL:Jawmuncher) @ Sep 19th 2009 2:42PM
You gotta love
RESIST THE TEMPTATION!
drumwiz86 @ Sep 20th 2009 12:06AM
I did
Marius @ Sep 19th 2009 2:43PM
A bad worker always blames his tools
Solace @ Sep 19th 2009 2:44PM
or his girlfriend
Marius @ Sep 19th 2009 2:44PM
true, but not in this case
Quiggy @ Sep 19th 2009 2:52PM
I'm guessing it would be tough to write an MMO for the NES. I'm sure that if a great coder sat down and tried to write one, they'd fail. Must be the person's fault, not the console's.
WREturns(There was once a dream called Rome) @ Sep 19th 2009 3:11PM
"It's a poor carpenter who blames his shoddy tools."
- Michael Bluth
Kevin949 @ Sep 19th 2009 3:17PM
wouldn't a poor carpenter only be able to afford shoddy tools?
Mr. Manly ESC Mcbeefington Ferguson The Second @ Sep 19th 2009 3:27PM
Or alcohol.
mike @ Sep 19th 2009 3:57PM
It's a bit of a different story when it's literally impossible to use any other tools and the tools suck. A bad toolset (especially in programming) can turn an easy task into a hideous task, and it's even worse if there are no alternatives. As much as I'm sure every developer wants to reverse engineer the PS3 and develop an inhouse SDK replacement and/or contribute time and money to developing a nicer one, it's not economically feasible.
Don't assume that vendor specific SDKs are going to be nice, intuitive, or designed with a person unfamiliar with the platform in mind.
johnnynumber5 @ Sep 19th 2009 4:15PM
Sony has developed better tools and has reduced the price of development kits. Phrye Engine, Nocturnal Project etc ... They are working to make the PS3 architecture similar to developing on the PC.
LegendaryRedass @ Sep 19th 2009 6:58PM
Or crack