As an owner of the XBox 360 since launch, and recently a PS3 (as well as a Wii), I feel qualified to comment. While I don't endorse the hacking of the 360, nor disparage the designer's intents (it's without question Microsoft's best product ever), the fact remains that the failure rate is inexcuseable. I'm on my second system, and I worry every time I turn it on that this one will fail as well. The reports around the web prove that the machine is patently unreliable. XBox Live is great, but MS has been screwing consumers with this box since launch (and the new Elite is no better, still using the 95nm chips).
By contrast, the PS3 is sleek, quiet, solidly built, and integrated (Blu-Ray,WiFi, Bluetooth, Media Readers, Hard Drive): it's a vastly superior piece of hardware to the 360. Games are equivalent on the 2 systems, with each having nice exclusives. Still, the PS3 more than justifies its high price and has been overwhelmingly impressive in the month or so I've had it.
MS deserves to take a big hit on the 360 for the poor reliability. Sony deserves a lot MORE credit for treating adult gamers like adults, with a high-end piece of electronics rather than a toy.
Both of these systems are driving the industry into a very big and very hard brick wall.
Games and not consoles are the mechanism which create the industry. And yet Sony and Microsoft have created systems so complex and powerful that to create a game which properly exploits the consoles needs a gigantic budget and a development effort that goes on for 24-36 months.
It's commercially unsustainable. No-one is making money with these turkeys - apart from a tiny number of first-party developers.
When the lifespan of a console is 4 years and it takes two-four years to make a half decent game you can see the idiocy of it all. The 360 should have launched with Halo3. But some 24 months after the launch ...and ... nada. In all that time only a handful of great games have been launched. With a franchise like Halo, you want a product every 12-18 months. Not every 24-36.
The situation with Sony is even worse. The development costs on the PS3 are even higher. Killzone2-sequel-to-a-turkey is employing half the frikkin Netherlands.
At least Microsoft provide free middleware and a reasonbly straightforward development platform. Developers on PS3 are expected to cope with its screwy architecture with absolutely minimal API support.
It's okay to make a game like you're James Friggin Cameron and spend zillions - if you are going to get something that makes money like Titanic. But when you've got an audience smaller than the people who saw Gigli, it makes no friggin sense.
Both of these systems are driving the industry into a very big and very hard brick wall.
Games and not consoles are the mechanism which create the industry. And yet Sony and Microsoft have created systems so complex and powerful that to create a game which properly exploits the consoles needs a gigantic budget and a development effort that goes on for 24-36 months.
It's commercially unsustainable. No-one is making money with these turkeys - apart from a tiny number of first-party developers.
When the lifespan of a console is 4 years and it takes two-four years to make a half decent game you can see the idiocy of it all. The 360 should have launched with Halo3. But some 24 months after the launch ...and ... nada. In all that time only a handful of great games have been launched. With a franchise like Halo, you want a product every 12-18 months. Not every 24-36.
The situation with Sony is even worse. The development costs on the PS3 are even higher. Killzone2-sequel-to-a-turkey is employing half the frikkin Netherlands.
At least Microsoft provide free middleware and a reasonbly straightforward development platform. Developers on PS3 are expected to cope with its screwy architecture with absolutely minimal API support.
It's okay to make a game like you're James Friggin Cameron and spend zillions - if you are going to get something that makes money like Titanic. But when you've got an audience smaller than the people who saw Gigli, it makes no friggin sense.
This is going to get ugly.
I agree entirely. The game development costs are driving the price of games out of most people's budgets too. I find £50 for a single game ridiculous. It's the same idea with HD. It's too expensive for what you get in return. I played Burnout on the 360 and I just thought that besides the graphics, it played just the same as the PS2, which is much cheaper.
I'm sure people will have seen this before but this page supposedly has a view from a games developer about which of the two consoles is better:
The only problem with that developer's take (while all accurate), is that it doesn't mention that you'll need to replace your XBox 360 3 times during the lifespan of this generation due to poor build reliability. Or that you'll have to buy another version, and/or accessories to equal the PS3 out of the box. HDMI? 1080p movie playback? Wi-FI? Bluetooth? Online Service?
I love the 360 as a platform, but I hate it as a piece of hardware. If I could have the 'platform' on more reliable hardware, I'd probably never have bought a PS3. Having all 3 now, I use the PS3 more (movies, MLB The Show, PS2 libary to catch up on).
I played Burnout on the 360 and I just thought that besides the graphics, it played just the same as the PS2, which is much cheaper.
Electronic Arts are working on a new version of Burnout. A franchise they are humping to death. They have something like sixteen programmers on the UI!!! I've never heard anything so dumb! That's not sixteen programmers working on the game. But sixteen programmers just doing the user frikkin interface!
Electronic Arts are working on a new version of Burnout. A franchise they are humping to death. They have something like sixteen programmers on the UI!!! I've never heard anything so dumb! That's not sixteen programmers working on the game. But sixteen programmers just doing the user frikkin interface!
C.
That's EA.
While I'd prefer to have a PS3 the only games I really played a lot last go around was KOTOR, KOTOR II and Jade Empire. The trend is likely to continue with me picking up a 360 for Mass Effect. I'm looking at Assasin's Creed but Ubisoft is much more PC friendly then Bioware has been of late.
As for dev costs that's true for all gaming platforms (PC, console, etc) except phones and casual games. Has there been a GDC in recent years (oh...like 10) without some speaker commenting about it?
As for dev costs that's true for all gaming platforms (PC, console, etc) except phones and casual games.
Vinea
WII dev costs are actually quite reasonable. DS costs are under control. Funny how those platforms are raking-in money. I wonder if the two facts are somehow related?
Pretty much anyone can build a PC game and stick it out there. With a budget from practically nothing to Half-Life 2 costs. That's one of the good things about PC game development. There's an ecosystem rather than a monoculture.
Did you know that Chris Sawyer (Railroad Tycoon etc.) works practically alone?
WII dev costs are actually quite reasonable. DS costs are under control. Funny how those platforms are raking-in money. I wonder if the two facts are somehow related?
Well given the Wii is a GameCube on steroids and the DS is a handheld yah...you're not paying mid six figures to low 7 figures just for the engine and putting together 720p game assets. Unreal 2 cost $750K. What does Unreal 3 cost? How much did Ubisoft sink into the development of Scimitar? Heck, I don't want to play Assassin's Creed as much as watch it as a movie. I suck at platformers.
Is Gamebryo still $50k/SKU? That's not too terrible unless you're an indie.
Quote:
Pretty much anyone can build a PC game and stick it out there. With a budget from practically nothing to Half-Life 2 costs. That's one of the good things about PC game development. There's an ecosystem rather than a monoculture.
Did you know that Chris Sawyer (Railroad Tycoon etc.) works practically alone?
C.
Yah...for certain genres you can. Railroad Tycoon and Locomotion is well...not the same kind of thing as a FPS or RTS. In those genres eye candy is what sells. If you build historical turn-based wargames you could do it the Chris Sawyer way...a game engine like the old SSI General Series would still sell into that genre. Hearts of Iron II isn't THAT much more demanding of a dev team than the old Koei games of the late 80s in terms of assets or engine. AI still sucks 20 years later.
Some of my favorites have been low cost games like Defcon. Something one coder could do.
There's been an indie game movement for a while now for the PC and with Game Creator MS is looking to scratch that itch on the 360. I think you can make money as an indie on the XBox 360 selling to XBLA. Torque 360 is coming out soon, maybe. TSE took forever to release.
Plus, there's a huge amount of web-based "casual" games with low production costs. Koster pointed out that MTV and other media folks are now producing games with high production quality (asset wise anyway).
This conversation is turning out to be interesting.
Comments
By contrast, the PS3 is sleek, quiet, solidly built, and integrated (Blu-Ray,WiFi, Bluetooth, Media Readers, Hard Drive): it's a vastly superior piece of hardware to the 360. Games are equivalent on the 2 systems, with each having nice exclusives. Still, the PS3 more than justifies its high price and has been overwhelmingly impressive in the month or so I've had it.
MS deserves to take a big hit on the 360 for the poor reliability. Sony deserves a lot MORE credit for treating adult gamers like adults, with a high-end piece of electronics rather than a toy.
Games and not consoles are the mechanism which create the industry. And yet Sony and Microsoft have created systems so complex and powerful that to create a game which properly exploits the consoles needs a gigantic budget and a development effort that goes on for 24-36 months.
It's commercially unsustainable. No-one is making money with these turkeys - apart from a tiny number of first-party developers.
When the lifespan of a console is 4 years and it takes two-four years to make a half decent game you can see the idiocy of it all. The 360 should have launched with Halo3. But some 24 months after the launch ...and ... nada. In all that time only a handful of great games have been launched. With a franchise like Halo, you want a product every 12-18 months. Not every 24-36.
The situation with Sony is even worse. The development costs on the PS3 are even higher. Killzone2-sequel-to-a-turkey is employing half the frikkin Netherlands.
At least Microsoft provide free middleware and a reasonbly straightforward development platform. Developers on PS3 are expected to cope with its screwy architecture with absolutely minimal API support.
It's okay to make a game like you're James Friggin Cameron and spend zillions - if you are going to get something that makes money like Titanic. But when you've got an audience smaller than the people who saw Gigli, it makes no friggin sense.
This is going to get ugly.
Both of these systems are driving the industry into a very big and very hard brick wall.
Games and not consoles are the mechanism which create the industry. And yet Sony and Microsoft have created systems so complex and powerful that to create a game which properly exploits the consoles needs a gigantic budget and a development effort that goes on for 24-36 months.
It's commercially unsustainable. No-one is making money with these turkeys - apart from a tiny number of first-party developers.
When the lifespan of a console is 4 years and it takes two-four years to make a half decent game you can see the idiocy of it all. The 360 should have launched with Halo3. But some 24 months after the launch ...and ... nada. In all that time only a handful of great games have been launched. With a franchise like Halo, you want a product every 12-18 months. Not every 24-36.
The situation with Sony is even worse. The development costs on the PS3 are even higher. Killzone2-sequel-to-a-turkey is employing half the frikkin Netherlands.
At least Microsoft provide free middleware and a reasonbly straightforward development platform. Developers on PS3 are expected to cope with its screwy architecture with absolutely minimal API support.
It's okay to make a game like you're James Friggin Cameron and spend zillions - if you are going to get something that makes money like Titanic. But when you've got an audience smaller than the people who saw Gigli, it makes no friggin sense.
This is going to get ugly.
I agree entirely. The game development costs are driving the price of games out of most people's budgets too. I find £50 for a single game ridiculous. It's the same idea with HD. It's too expensive for what you get in return. I played Burnout on the 360 and I just thought that besides the graphics, it played just the same as the PS2, which is much cheaper.
I'm sure people will have seen this before but this page supposedly has a view from a games developer about which of the two consoles is better:
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm
I love the 360 as a platform, but I hate it as a piece of hardware. If I could have the 'platform' on more reliable hardware, I'd probably never have bought a PS3. Having all 3 now, I use the PS3 more (movies, MLB The Show, PS2 libary to catch up on).
I played Burnout on the 360 and I just thought that besides the graphics, it played just the same as the PS2, which is much cheaper.
Electronic Arts are working on a new version of Burnout. A franchise they are humping to death. They have something like sixteen programmers on the UI!!! I've never heard anything so dumb! That's not sixteen programmers working on the game. But sixteen programmers just doing the user frikkin interface!
C.
Electronic Arts are working on a new version of Burnout. A franchise they are humping to death. They have something like sixteen programmers on the UI!!! I've never heard anything so dumb! That's not sixteen programmers working on the game. But sixteen programmers just doing the user frikkin interface!
C.
That's EA.
While I'd prefer to have a PS3 the only games I really played a lot last go around was KOTOR, KOTOR II and Jade Empire. The trend is likely to continue with me picking up a 360 for Mass Effect. I'm looking at Assasin's Creed but Ubisoft is much more PC friendly then Bioware has been of late.
As for dev costs that's true for all gaming platforms (PC, console, etc) except phones and casual games. Has there been a GDC in recent years (oh...like 10) without some speaker commenting about it?
Vinea
That's EA.
As for dev costs that's true for all gaming platforms (PC, console, etc) except phones and casual games.
Vinea
WII dev costs are actually quite reasonable. DS costs are under control. Funny how those platforms are raking-in money. I wonder if the two facts are somehow related?
Pretty much anyone can build a PC game and stick it out there. With a budget from practically nothing to Half-Life 2 costs. That's one of the good things about PC game development. There's an ecosystem rather than a monoculture.
Did you know that Chris Sawyer (Railroad Tycoon etc.) works practically alone?
C.
WII dev costs are actually quite reasonable. DS costs are under control. Funny how those platforms are raking-in money. I wonder if the two facts are somehow related?
Well given the Wii is a GameCube on steroids and the DS is a handheld yah...you're not paying mid six figures to low 7 figures just for the engine and putting together 720p game assets. Unreal 2 cost $750K. What does Unreal 3 cost? How much did Ubisoft sink into the development of Scimitar? Heck, I don't want to play Assassin's Creed as much as watch it as a movie.
Is Gamebryo still $50k/SKU? That's not too terrible unless you're an indie.
Pretty much anyone can build a PC game and stick it out there. With a budget from practically nothing to Half-Life 2 costs. That's one of the good things about PC game development. There's an ecosystem rather than a monoculture.
Did you know that Chris Sawyer (Railroad Tycoon etc.) works practically alone?
C.
Yah...for certain genres you can. Railroad Tycoon and Locomotion is well...not the same kind of thing as a FPS or RTS. In those genres eye candy is what sells. If you build historical turn-based wargames you could do it the Chris Sawyer way...a game engine like the old SSI General Series would still sell into that genre. Hearts of Iron II isn't THAT much more demanding of a dev team than the old Koei games of the late 80s in terms of assets or engine. AI still sucks 20 years later.
Some of my favorites have been low cost games like Defcon. Something one coder could do.
There's been an indie game movement for a while now for the PC and with Game Creator MS is looking to scratch that itch on the 360. I think you can make money as an indie on the XBox 360 selling to XBLA. Torque 360 is coming out soon, maybe. TSE took forever to release.
Plus, there's a huge amount of web-based "casual" games with low production costs. Koster pointed out that MTV and other media folks are now producing games with high production quality (asset wise anyway).
This conversation is turning out to be interesting.
Vinea