| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (162)

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:36PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:40PM s ls said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:43PM zsavior said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:43PM reversecycology said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:47PM Jono said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
It's okay, we all know the PS3 is the better console. It has [good] exclusives.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:03PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.....
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 4:00PM Gun Barrier said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
you can play ff11 with a free silver account on the 360. Not many people know that though.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 4:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 4:54PM MarkezJM said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"He says that everyone who develops on 360 first is retarded"

¬_¬
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 5:15PM Extinction said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Seems more like they are saying its easier to start on PS3
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 5:37PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 6:10PM Fane1024 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The one feature they're overlooking is that the PS3 has mouse and keyboard support, not that any developers (except Epic) are using it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 7:00PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 8:42PM cloud858rk said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 9:11PM Blaquebeird said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 9:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 10:57PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@ 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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 12:59AM DeepFriedSushi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 3:00AM AUserName said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
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!*
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 5:40AM mahouneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Maverick:
Actually, that's a good question. Why does Insomniac stick with Sony through thick and thin?
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 7:04AM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@ 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
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 12:22PM mahouneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lol. Good thing that Insomniac isn't the only studio that thinks like that.
Reply

Posted: Sep 21st 2009 4:38AM bm111 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:41PM reversecycology said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
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.

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:01PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:03PM reversecycology said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:09PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 4:36PM skyzbig said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I think you need to do some research there, Maverick....Sucker Punch isn't owned by Sony.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 5:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
skyzbig,

What you just contributed only strengthens Maverick's argument, and weakens reversecycology's.

So, thanks.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 6:15PM Fane1024 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 6:52PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:42PM MrXile said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:36PM ZayCube said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Thats just.. disgusting!
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 5:17PM I AM IRONHIDE said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MMOs will always be Godly on PC and PC only.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 2:45AM Jacksy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The name and the rep that is Sprinkles is disgusting.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:42PM Jawmuncher said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You gotta love

RESIST THE TEMPTATION!

Posted: Sep 20th 2009 12:06AM drumwiz86 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I did
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:43PM Marius said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A bad worker always blames his tools

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:44PM s ls said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
or his girlfriend
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:44PM Marius said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
true, but not in this case
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:52PM quiggy said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:11PM Dr Perry Ulysses Cox said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"It's a poor carpenter who blames his shoddy tools."

- Michael Bluth
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:17PM kevin949 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
wouldn't a poor carpenter only be able to afford shoddy tools?
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 4:15PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 6:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Or crack
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:44PM pika2000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Make sense. MMO need as much user base as possible, so multiplatform is a no-brainer. The conclusion here is to start with the PS3 then go the the 360, as porting from PS3 to 360 is easier than the other way around.

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 4:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
More likely than not different console's users will be partitioned between platforms (disjoint sets of servers), so you'll never be able to meet your ConsoleA playing friend if you're on ConsoleB even though you're playing the same game. These slides are calling consoles 'more social', yet there'll be a huge wedge -- which cannot be conquered -- driven in between players.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2009 2:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
[Offtopic]
Joystiq's Flame Bait of the day. Logical but flame wars will start regardless

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW