E3: Tretton talks PS3 games going multiplatform and sports titles doing 30fps |
Ó
Sony Computer Entertainment America President and CEO Jack Tretton recently answered some key issues raised to the disfavor of their PlayStation 3 console, including games going multiplatform and development issues.One of the issues brought up concerned the fact that games such as Medal of Honor: Airborne are getting delayed months behind the Xbox 360 and PC versions. Another was Fatal Inertia's jump to the rival console and Koei's move to scrap the PS3 version altogether due to development problems.
Tretton says that he's no development expert but comments that it might be that the PS3 hasn't been in the market long enough for game makers to get a firm grasp on its architecture. He adds "if games are shipping later and they're not at least in parity and that's a disadvantage for us and one that we'd want to correct."
He also gave his thoughts on the looming question of why the Xbox 360 versions of EA Sports' Madden NFL '08 and 2K Sports' All-Pro football can run at 60 frames per second while the PS3 incarnation only does 30.
"On our NBA game and our MLB game, it will ship at 60fps. We win the baseball battle handily against our competition, so I guess we took away that concern by building a game that does take advantage of the technology in the two sports we participate in," says Tretton.
Finally, the SCEA chief explains why publishers are going multiplatform all the time. He says that gaming has a business side to it and that means publishers have to sell games. "If you put it on three, four, five platforms just so you can sell a few to each one and if the numbers add up for you, I guess that strategy works," he concludes.
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
so i guess, they admitted the 30fps for the football games. to bad for the almighty PS3, eventhough he says they have 2 games running 60fps, whocares about them? football is the only sport game i will play and actually have fun with.
All he prove is... the PS3 of course he can.. is just they can't do it or they don't figure it out just yet... and buy our sport games that it's better... really... EA needs to learn to work with the cell... anyway I was starting to hate EA before the PS3... since I bought the 360... and the guy above not everybody is like u.. maybe u don't even play football but who knows...
Wrong. Madden will run at 60fps. You can hold me to that.
It's because Sony cut corners on the image quality of their product to acheive 60FPS....
EA's "Lazy" product...
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/900/900781/img_4700138.html
Sony's "better" product...
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/905/905978/img_4703026.html
same type of shot, it's obvious EA has more effects and shaders working in their game, yet it still goes at 60 FPS on 360....Sony's BBall game looks like it belongs on the first xbox, it BETTER get 60FPS...
you are an Xbot and therefore your opinion is moot. How about you shove those broken links up your A$$.
They are not broken at all as they work for me when I copy and paste them...
Maybe you just don't want to face the fact that EA is producing a better looking game then Sony is, and it's running faster on the competitions hardware ?
hmmm ?
Lol, Shatterdome. Warhawk proves the PS3 is superior. Wait till you see/play it. If Sony can pull off stunning games, this means the hardware is capable but the developer just isn't or can't do it yet. EA is known for being the laziest developer around. So 2+2 = 4.
Hm, hard to say what's true or not, but one can read this on the net:
Quote Epic's Rein:
--
He replied that they were "really excited about being able to tap the power" of the PS3, and made a comparison to 2006's amazing Gears of War for the Xbox 360. Rein said that UT 3 is actually running better on the PS3 this year than Gears was on the 360 last year!
--
Have no idea how reliable that is, but at someone seems to believe so.
After Killzone 2 showcase in E3...the argument of which system is more capable graphicaly is officialy over
the game has set the Benchmark for console graphics,Just watch Gears of war in-game graphics in gametrailers review and you,l understand how much better is Killzone 2...it has 5 times the scale
i,m not surprised that EA decided to run it at half the framerate,Optim ization between the 2 systems is hard and Costly....not to mention that EA is one of the worse developers "not publishers" on earth
EA games are crap to make it short
Sony is clever not back-up EA...however they will have to improve their own Sports-software line-up to compete
there is another reason why EA would do this....
Honestly...would you spend money,time and resources to get your game on a system that belongs to a company that is developing sports games to compete against yours
ofcourse they,l optimize it for the 360...Microsoft doesnt have its own Sports franchise,its better for EA to help the 360 than the PS3 with Sony developing its own sports games
so there you have it.....the 360 depends on EA for sports,the PS3 has Sony making some sports games,naturaly if you,r EA you,l help the one that is not competing with you
thats all....
thats right
"After Killzone 2 showcase in E3...the argument of which system is more capable graphicaly is officialy over"
Now go find a preview of those who played the Killzone demo who agree with you.
Are they impressed? Yes. Do they say it's as good as anyother next-gen game they've seen? Yes. Do they say it's better than every other next-gen game they've seen? NO!
"Just watch Gears of war in-game graphics in gametrailers review and you,l understand how much better is Killzone 2"
Yes, let's compare Killzone 2's realtime cutscene to Gears of War's realtime cutscene, and then compare Killzone 2's gameplay graphics to Gears of War's gameplay graphics. IMO, the two are on par (despite GEoW being the older game).
From the previews I've read of hands-on with games like Halo 3 and Killzone 2, everyone is impressed, but in NONE of them have they said Killzone 2 is setting the benchmark for console graphics, i.e. nonoe of them think KZ2 is above and beyond everything else. Fact!
I've just seen this...
http://ps3.qj.net/E3-Killzone-2-demo-conclusion-video/pg/49/aid/97500
So, that's the greatest gameplay graphics you've ever seen? That sets the benchmark for console graphics?
R-i-g-h-t....
IMO, UT3 is far more impressive ingame.
I tend to agree with you Gamez. I would also include COD4 (the gameplay videos look just as good imo), and even Battlefield Bad Company (with destructable environments, but only seen realtime trailer so far).
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/17406.html
So I also don't see how Killzone is raisng the bar graphically, but the good news is that it's at least on par with the games out there (although I admit, the gameplay clip you posted isn't that impressive, but the game is still in developement).
first off BF will never look that great because A) its an EA games game... Look at BF 2142, that game required thousands of dollars of hardware to play yet it didnt look that good. CoD4 still doesnt look nearly as good as KZ2. And yes i agree... UT3 is by far THE best looking game for PS3 so far... Oh and GoW isnt a year old more like 8 months.
"first off BF will never look that great because A) its an EA games game... Look at BF 2142"
BF 2142 is a completely different type of game, so that's irrelevent here. Also, being an EA game means nothing, it's down to the actual developement team. No-one was complaining about the excellent graphics in Fight Night 3 on the 360 and PS3, despite being an EA game.
"CoD4 still doesnt look nearly as good as KZ2."
For gameplay, I think it does, and is easily on par with the graphics seen here in the Killzone movie (and it has better fire effects imo). Actually, for me, it currently looks better than Killzone's gameplay graphics.
http://uk.gamespot.com/video/939213/6174766/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-stage-demo
"And yes i agree... UT3 is by far THE best looking game for PS3 so far... "
Pleased we agree on something. :)
"Oh and GoW isnt a year old more like 8 months."
I didn't say it was a year old, I only said it was an "older" game, and it is.
BTW Matt, I'm comparing COD4 to the Killzone gameplay shown here on QJ;
http://ps3.qj.net/E3-Killzone-2-demo-conclusion-video/pg/49/aid/97500