backtop

Print 101 comment(s) - last by rupaniii.. on Aug 18 at 10:58 AM
EA explains why Madden NFL 08 runs faster on the Xbox 360

When it comes to a videogame franchise that gets the most repeat business, it’s hard to tackle the dominance of EA Sports’ Madden NFL games.

For football fans, Madden is the game to get every early fall. This year, the Madden NFL 08 release is extra special for those on warring sides of the console superiority debate. EA Sports made it no secret that the Xbox 360 version of the game would be the best console version of the game that is capable of running at 60 frames-per-second.

Sadly for Sony faithful, EA Sports said that the PlayStation 3 version of Madden NFL 08 will run at around 30 frames-per-second – half that of the Xbox 360 version.

Although reviews of the game following its release on Tuesday indicate that the PlayStation 3 version of Madden NFL 08 isn’t unplayable due to its choppier frame rate, the Xbox 360 version is vastly preferred for its smoother animations.

Fanboys will surely use the technical differences between the two console versions to support their own side, but the truth may be as simple as a different learning curve. A gamer emailed EA Sports inquiring about the differences between the two versions, and received a response from Rob M., EA Sports senior technical support, with an explanation, as posted on Maxconsole.

“While we fully understand your frustration with the limitations the technology has placed against the video frames per second of the game play on the PlayStation 3 game console, it was our intent to put out the best possible with Madden across 10 platforms,” wrote Rob M. of EA Sports. “While it is very simple to draw a conclusion based on the end-user experience with the game technology, what most people do not realize is hours of research which goes into fully understanding the hardware demands for each console.

“In the case of the next-generation consoles, many publishers have been developing titles for the Xbox 360 for over 3 1/2 years while everyone who publishes now for the PlayStation 3 with the exception of Sony has been developing for the PlayStation 3 for only a little over one full year. The differences in the overall knowledge of the hardware is vastly different for both consoles and, as is the case with newer technology, it is very difficult to get it right the first time.”

The response from EA Sports notes that 30 frames per second is the standard for all PS3 football games this year, not just Madden, but also NCAA Football, and 2K Sports' offerings as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hours of Research?
By TomZ on 8/15/2007 10:04:16 AM , Rating: 5
I guess the statement that they performed "hours of research" sounded kind of funny to me. Not days or weeks of research - just a few hours maybe? But I'm sure the reality is that they spent a lot of time and arrived at the 30fps limitation with a lot of careful consideration.




RE: Hours of Research?
By mdogs444 on 8/15/2007 10:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Could be right.

Or could be that sony does not have enough developer tools and developer support to make the time investment for EA worth their while.


RE: Hours of Research?
By TomZ on 8/15/2007 10:10:38 AM , Rating: 3
That would be a big mistake by Sony - big games like Madden help sell consoles, and having a deficiency like the one stated in this article can only help XBOX360 relative to PS3, even if only a little.


RE: Hours of Research?
By mdogs444 on 8/15/2007 10:13:57 AM , Rating: 3
Very true. I agree.

But i guess that is neither "here nor there" when it comes to EA right? They just want to sell the game - regardless which console/system its for. If you dont buy a PS3, you'll buy a 360, or PS2, or PSP, or...etc.


RE: Hours of Research?
By ryedizzel on 8/15/2007 10:17:00 AM , Rating: 5
I think the situation here is obvious. I don't mean to bash the PS3 but Sony has always been known for making consoles that are complex to design for. The Emotion Engine for PS2 was a perfect example. They need to wake up and realize that they are no longer the console gaming juggernaut, and that game developers are less willing to jump through a bunch of extra hoops just to code a game for their poor selling system.


RE: Hours of Research?
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 10:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
how the system is selling has nothing to do with it, you are right they need to realize developers are not going to jump through hoops, but as the article noted people have been designing 360 games for 3 years, and it was easier to develop in the first place. Sony's system is quite hard to code, a learning curve is needed, and one year is just not enough to play catchup with a system thats been out for three times longer, and is easier to code in the first place.

Its really sad really, because developers are not going to spend the time to take advantage of the extra power the ps3 provides, and my guess is that most dual platform are developed for the 360 then ported to ps3, resulting in worse performance sometimes than that of the 360.


RE: Hours of Research?
By ryedizzel on 8/15/2007 10:46:59 AM , Rating: 5
well i disagree and think system sales have a large part to do with it. if PS3s were outselling 360s and Wii's, then i guarentee you EA would have spent more time making it better. but like i said before Sony likes to design overcomplicated consoles which put the developers through hell while they learn to code for it. and even after game makers were finally able to utilize the full power of the PS2's emotion engine, was it really any faster than the Pentium 3 inside the original Xbox? i expect to same the same results for the PS3 vs. 360. but in the meantime game developers will continue to drag their feet on coding for it until it shows reasonable market value.


RE: Hours of Research?
By nikon133 on 8/15/2007 9:16:35 PM , Rating: 1
Amen to that. Comes to EA, I've notice something else... some PC games (like NFS Carbon) are crap on nVidia graphic cards, while running much better on equally capable ATI hardware. Now... can they say that they didn't have enough time to "research" nVidia PC hardware..? Yeah, right.

yeah, right. they are just a bunch of lazy... bent on making maximum profit with minimum effort. I'd bet they develop games like Carbon or Madden for Xbox360 and then just do a quick and messy port to other platforms. As 360 has ATI graphics, games work better with ATI hardware in general.

If PS3 manages to outsell 360 and EA starts developing new games for PS3 and port to other platforms, I bet PC performance on nVidia hardware will get better than ATI PC as well.

while I do agree that PS2 was very exotic hardware and had longer learning curve to develop for, PS3 should be more mainstream. nVidia chip in PS3 is pretty much standard. And Cell processor(s), even if not fully utilised at present, should have more than enough grunt not to be bottleneck, even if code it runes is far from optimised... surely not only half of 360 speed!


RE: Hours of Research?
By Hexxx on 8/16/2007 9:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As 360 has ATI graphics, games work better with ATI hardware in general.


Not any more... I believe that Xenos is superior to the RSX but your statement isn't correct.

quote:
And Cell processor(s), even if not fully utilised at present, should have more than enough grunt not to be bottleneck, even if code it runes is far from optimised... surely not only half of 360 speed!


The code needs to be highly optimized to take advantage of the Cell processor. The 360 is a symmetrical tri-core general purpose CPU, the Cell only has a single core general purpose CPU (PPE) and 6 usable specialized cores (SPE) that need to be specifically coded for. So if not optimized, the Cell would probably have less than half the power.


RE: Hours of Research?
By DingieM on 8/17/2007 9:58:55 AM , Rating: 3
Xenos is indeed clearly superior to the RSX, but the PS3 can offload SOME graphics handling to the Cell SPE's. That will surely take away the processing speed as advantage.

Xenos has full HDR, 4xAA AND blending almost without speed penalties but ONLY if a programmer uses D3D texture compression (meaning building an engine from the ground up for the Xbox360). PGR3 and PGR4 uses that. Just look at the simulated rain with PGR4 it looks really impressive and real-life like.

RSX (any nVidia G7x class GPU) can NOT do HDR+AA natively so PS3 has to do some hacked version of HDR through the Cell but that eats performance taking away the advantage. They may achieve higher resolution HDR but that is not guaranteed to look better (also with regard to visual style). HDR should always be a (tiny) bit blurry because the human eye sees it that way as well...maybe due to watery eyes...

Going back to the Xenos: that has a tesselation engine that can subdivide rough polygons into much smoother ones giving the impression that much more polygons were used without using the space and bandwidth.
If Xbox360 developers use this tesselator, they can do the same things as Killzone 2 does and even more, because with the Xenos Unified Shader Architecture they will be capable of showing much more special effects and very fast. I'm absolutely positive they can achieve that by understanding the technology.
Highly likely PS3 fangirls are going to flame me for it.

BUT, all in all both systems have roughly equal power, thats what the majority of developers conclude themselves.
EA can achieve more with the PS3 than they do now with Madden'08. Combination of overall better accessible hardware, tools and support IS the way to go and is GOLD.

PS3 may have a much harder to understand architecture to develop for, Xbox360 isn't always that "easy" though I must say.


RE: Hours of Research?
By Verran on 8/15/2007 10:52:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
how the system is selling has nothing to do with it

I disagree. I don't think the comment was intended to harp on the fact that PS3 is coming in third in a three man race. Everyone knows that. I think the comment was meant to say that at one point, Playstation was quite honestly dominating the console scene. At that point, Playstation could have been downright impossible to code for, but it didn't matter. There was no alternative, so developers had to "bite the bullet".

However, times have changed and PS3 does not have that same luxury now. This is a BIG blow for PS3. Madden (and all the other lame EA sports game iterations) is a huge seller for consoles. EA has basically said here that it's not worth their money to go the extra mile and decipher the PS3 development tools. If the PS3 version runs crappy, they don't really care.

Sure, the 360 has been out longer and to a certain degree things will get better as the PS3 ages as well. But many developers have also said that the PS3 is just plain harder to code for. The Cell is neat, but it's only faster if you take the time to code for it. The question is, who will offer the olive branch? Will Sony develop better tools, or will developers take a hit to their bottom line and spend more time catching their PS3 versions up? EA seems to have made their decision.


RE: Hours of Research?
By afkrotch on 8/15/2007 10:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
What you also have to know, is that the PS3's cell processor might be complicated to write for, but the development for it is not going to stop. They'll be new, smaller, faster Cell processors in the future. I find it highly likely that it'll power the next iteration of Playstation.

So developers don't need to head back to the drawing board, if the next Playstation uses a faster Cell or multiple Cells.


RE: Hours of Research?
By FITCamaro on 8/15/2007 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
While its possible. It also comes with an extremely high production cost. And if developers say "Get rid of it" because of the difficulty to program it, Sony will. With development budgets already skyrocketing, the last thing developers need is to have spend extra time trying to figure out the intricate complexities of the CPU.

I'm hoping the next generation of consoles won't be quite so lacking in the CPU department. Even an Athlon X2 or Core Duo would have been a better CPU for either console.

With the chips getting so cheap, its possible future consoles might even use one of them. I mean we already have $266 quad cores. In 3 years, we'll probably have octal-core chips. So who knows, one of the next gen consoles might have a quad-core AMD or Intel processor.


RE: Hours of Research?
By adam92682 on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hours of Research?
By TomZ on 8/15/2007 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 1
Acquired, maybe; out of business, no way.


RE: Hours of Research?
By rupaniii on 8/18/2007 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 1
Naah. It's likely Microsoft will be AMD's biggest client. AMD will design a Fusion processor with the Tricore processor embedded on it. Yeah, why? AMD Owns ATi, which is in 360. With and x86-64 core, a new XBOX would run old XBOX games better than 360 did. With a translation layer for graphics, no problem. But, no, AMD's got a nice contract coming, no doubt.
Maybe IBM will have to take some manufacturing, but, it's almost a lock for an AMD ATi solution.
WHY?
Well... If it downloads media, uses live, and has x86, and hooks to the tv and internet... and browses the web, maybe has a keyboard, and everyone has HDTV by then... maybe it runs Windows by then too.... and, well, maybe Microsoft plays their endgame by getting their media center in the living room finally.


RE: Hours of Research?
By Proteusza on 8/15/2007 11:36:39 AM , Rating: 3
Nintendo has never used bespoke hardware for its consoles (or, they have used customized hardware, but not a fully customized solution).

The reasons are simple: simpler development because the hardware is more established, lower production cost because the R&D is already done.


RE: Hours of Research?
By afkrotch on 8/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hours of Research?
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Course the Cell is really no different than an Athlon or Core 2
do you have any idea what you are talking about? because i can see the steam rising from your ass from here. The cell is not anything close to the conventional x86 processor.
quote:
Sony has been trying to keep it all in house, but sometimes the company can't do such, that's why the PS3 sporting an Nvidia RSX.
The cell was an IBM/sony joint venture.

quote:
Microsoft on the other hand is extremely dependent on outside companies to create their Xbox 360.

quote:
Why do you think Microsoft didn't bother using an already existing proc, like they did with the original Xbox?

Your two statements contradict each other, which one is it.

Every next gen console (including the wii) runs off of some kind of IBM processor, sorry to tell you, every gpu is either run off of ATI or NVIDIA hardware, i dont know what you are trying to get at here.


RE: Hours of Research?
By sviola on 8/15/2007 2:51:52 PM , Rating: 3
You are way off here. To the facts:

1 - Cell was made by Sony AND IBM.

2- Xbox 360 runs an IBM processor, so does the Wii.

3 - Xbox (the first one) ran an Intel processor and MS had lots of issues with Intel on pricing and other business stuff relating to it, that made it go through a in-house (and with IBM help) solution for the Xbox 360. It's highly improbable that MS will buy any "shelf" processor.

4 - Xbox 360 processor is not an existing processor. It may be based on PowerPC processors, but it is not a "shelf" processor.


RE: Hours of Research?
By FITCamaro on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hours of Research?
By DingieM on 8/16/2007 3:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
To add further to that.

Because the PPE in the Cell and each one of three Xenon cores lacks braching logic almost entirely, they have parallelism still not found in "normal" CPU's.
So game developers *must* rely on parallel code to enjoy the power of both HD game consoles.
A trade-off by M$ and $ony is the achillesheel for the developers.
Granted if fully utilizing the parallel cores both console will provide massive performance still not found in "normal" CPU's.

Regarding the Xbox360 GPU subsystem a.k. Xenos, its a joint approach by M$ and ATI for which its a 60% ATI part but the IP lies with M$. This means the Xenos IS a M$ thing.

In the beginning developers complained at the difficulty of writing (heavily) multithreaded code, but things are slowly changing. It IS the future but will remain (very) complex in the long run. A simple multithreaded tool is more easily understandable, but when more and more processes come into a design the complexity wil increase significantly.


RE: Hours of Research?
By encia on 8/16/2007 8:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regarding the Xbox360 GPU subsystem a.k. Xenos, its a joint approach by M$ and ATI for which its a 60% ATI part but the IP lies with M$. This means the Xenos IS a M$ thing.

How come AMD is giving Xenos IP licenses to other 3rd parties (not Microsoft)?

Refer to http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=38641


RE: Hours of Research?
By DingieM on 8/17/2007 10:03:37 AM , Rating: 2
Woops didn't know that, thx anyways :-)


RE: Hours of Research?
By Darkon on 8/16/2007 9:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
Xenon nor PPE hardly lack entirely branch prediction logic, all processors last 16 + years hardly lack branch prediction logic entirely even a SPE has branch prediction logic, although simple branch prediction logic which of course requires manual branch prediction since SPE branch architecture does not include dynamic branch predictor.

Xenons/PPEs piss poor branch predictor is hardly what developers complain about despite a heavy branch penalty, cache misses, and instruction cache stalls, load-hit-store penalties are the worst offenders on this processors.


RE: Hours of Research?
By ryedizzel on 8/15/2007 11:08:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What you also have to know, is that the PS3's cell processor might be complicated to write for, but the development for it is not going to stop. They'll be new, smaller, faster Cell processors in the future. I find it highly likely that it'll power the next iteration of Playstation.

thats assuming Sony even decides to continue making game consoles after this. after all the Metal Gear series is one of their only remaining exclusives, and Solid Snake is getting so old that i am beginning to picture him collecting social security and sneaking around Century Village. ;)


RE: Hours of Research?
By Alpha4 on 8/15/2007 4:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Your quip about MGS aside (though I find it funny ;) ), you do have a point about the likelihood of Sony following through with a PS4. I guess it comes down to what the future has in store for Sony Computer Entertainment in general.


RE: Hours of Research?
By Alpha4 on 8/15/2007 4:18:52 PM , Rating: 3
I definitely agree, and I think developers might see researching the cell as a long term investment as well. If for no other reason this would be because Sony & IBM have an unwavering roadmap for the cell while Microsoft has started a trend of switching CPU architectures between generations. I understand one instance isn't enough for a definitive bearing but it can be disconcerting for developers thinking about the future.


RE: Hours of Research?
By FITCamaro on 8/15/2007 10:55:24 AM , Rating: 3
His point is that Sony is not the only major player anymore and developers would rather develop on an easier system than one that is much harder to program for. Even in 3 years the PS3s architecture will still be more complicated. Yes developers will have a better idea of how to make up for it but it will still be more difficult.

Microsoft's tools to program for the 360 are far superior to that of Sony's as well. And sales do matter. Even if they were of equal difficulty to program for, which do you think a developer would rather support? A system with over 12 million consoles sold, or one with only around 7 million sold? Games sell the console but games are only made for the console if people buy it. Its similar to the chicken and the egg.

Sony is still largely counting on the few Japanese developers who make big hitting titles to sell the PS3. If MGS4 and Final Fantasy weren't PS3 exclusives, the system really would have nothing going for it. And MGS4s fate is still up in the air. Konami themselves have said that it might go to other systems (read, the 360) to help make up the development cost. They didn't say it but its because of the PS3s poor sales. If the PS3 was selling well, they wouldn't have a problem to sell enough copies. But its not. This holiday season will be a determining factor but considering Microsoft can easily cut prices again and Sony can't, I doubt it'll manage to pull itself out of its slump.

I eventually will get a PS3. But its a ways off.


RE: Hours of Research?
By afkrotch on 8/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hours of Research?
By TomZ on 8/15/2007 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 3
It's funny that you point out the losses they have with the hardware, then in the next paragraph call it "stingy" when they don't decide to lower prices more. Sheesh.


RE: Hours of Research?
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 1:32:42 PM , Rating: 3
hes contradicted himself on every post hes made in the last hour, nough said..


RE: Hours of Research?
By FITCamaro on 8/15/2007 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
They can cut their cost more because their costs to produce the console are much cheaper. Once the 65nm revision becomes the standard, their production costs will go way down.

They might not have made money in an entire quarter yet, but that doesn't mean they can't reduce the selling price of the hardware.

And Sony also is getting rid of that model with the $100 price cut which was the whole reason for the cut. By the holiday season, you won't be able to get it for $500 anymore unless they cut the price again. Last I checked Microsoft didn't cut prices only so they can jack them back up with new, less capable models.


RE: Hours of Research?
By Legionosh on 8/16/2007 10:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm...if you'd care to look it up Microsoft has been MAKING money on the 360 for a while now (the gaming division on the whole may not be in the black but the 360 IS making money). I think everyone knows that (except you apparently)..

..and conversely it isn't like Sony is making money on the PS3 yet either (you DO know that when the PS3 was launched less than a year ago Sony was losing between $280-$350 on both the 20GB and 60GB models right?)

As far as "Sonys $100 price cut", again EVERYONE ELSE on the planet knows this is more or less a fire sale to get rid of old stock. AGAIN, if you'd care to look it up, once the 60GB models are all gone there (Sony themselves have stated that the 60GB models are no longer being produced and once these are gone there will be no more), then all there will be left to purchase will be the 80GB model WITHOUT the emotion engine (basically a PS2) hardware. I'm glad I managed to acquire a 60GB model for myself. It's a nice addition to my 360 and Wii.

While the 360s price cut isn't huge, and everyone (including myself) thought it would be more, at least it's a permanent price cut and not a fire sale. (meaning they won't stop making the current premium model only to release an INFERIOR model for $100 more).

Yes the elite is $100 more, but you do get 100GB of extra HD space. While not a great deal the extra 100GB is nice (I still think both the premium and elite should have dropped more in price, but that's not my call)

Now what exactly were you saying again???

Kevin

legionosh@msn.com


RE: Hours of Research?
By bpurkapi on 8/15/2007 3:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
The real console battle is not between ps3 vs 360 but both these guys vs. the wii. The 360 and PS3 have very little exclusives, with most dev's deciding to put out games on both consoles. In this environment the best dev kit, which Microsoft gave out early, will win. Since the Microsoft kit is easy to use they create the 360 version first and then attempt to make this merge to the ps3 and PC's. While all this happens we are essentially living in a 360 dominated gamescape. The devs then have to develop very differently for the wii and ds. In this regard the 360 has already won the gaming crown, with the wii being the only noticeably different console that can challange for market share. The real ironic part is that although the PS3 might not get the gaming glory, its Blu Ray player is winning the format war. In the end I see most people who enjoy HD media grabbing the PS3 because it is a great value. While on the other hand the Wii is the best value for casual gamers.


RE: Hours of Research?
By phusg on 8/17/2007 10:47:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The real ironic part is that although the PS3 might not get the gaming glory, its Blu Ray player is winning the format war.


Yes that is funny, although I think it's very early to call a winner. I think the winner'll be the one which gets a sub $100 player onto the market. There's no way Sony will be able to sell the PS3 for that little, so the purported 'great value' of the PS3 will soon disappear...


RE: Hours of Research?
By Ard on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hours of Research?
By Ard on 8/16/2007 12:00:14 AM , Rating: 1
Why am I not surprised to find that some douchebags rated me down. What's wrong, can't face the truth?


RE: Hours of Research?
By walk2k on 8/15/2007 2:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Translation: We did another lazy port of last year's code for the next version of Madden, now give some some damn money.


RE: Hours of Research?
By mars777 on 8/15/2007 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 4
Hours of research?
Do you know what is the biggest software sweat shop in the whole world?
EA programmers dont have time to make the games... think if they have time to research.

Just a few random links... try and find better ones on google...

http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/12/06...

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/12/02...

http://www.developerdotstar.com/community/node/28

http://forums.macnn.com/85/macnn-lounge-archives/2...

This is EA... its not the playstation that is guilty. EA games just cant work good on any hardware and it just gets worse more complex the hardware is.


RE: Hours of Research?
By sviola on 8/15/2007 2:38:51 PM , Rating: 4
Work is measured in hours, not days or weeks. Professionals are paid for hours of labor. And they probably spend over hundreds of hours researching the hardware.


RE: Hours of Research?
By TomZ on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hours of Research?
By parithon on 8/15/2007 3:28:12 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously you are mixing up terms here... If you're talking about a job then you estimate in days, week, months, etc. When you're talking about actual time, it is expressed in hours. For example, I expect it will take XX days to finish the job... It took XX man hours to complete the job.

If you still don't get it, paychecks are measured in hours, not days, weeks, months, etc.


RE: Hours of Research?
By Assimilator87 on 8/15/2007 4:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the GPU the biggest bottleneck in gaming performance? If so, what's with all this focus on the PS3's superior CPU performance. Why can't they just program the game to run on the single PowerPC processor in Cell and let RSX do the rest? I'll bet even that solution could crank out 60 FPS. How multithreaded do you think EA actually made the 360 version? Probably not that much.


360 design tools
By thebrown13 on 8/15/2007 10:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft's programming environment >>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else's.

Nuff said.




RE: 360 design tools
By philsworth on 8/15/2007 11:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
DirectX is pretty good but OpenGL is pretty good too which is what Linux, Mac and PS3 use.

The problem is not the development environment, it is the hardware.


RE: 360 design tools
By thebrown13 on 8/15/2007 11:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
Good and easy to use are totally different things. Sure you can do the same things, but I'll let you guess which one takes half the time.


RE: 360 design tools
By TomZ on 8/15/2007 11:25:41 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The problem is not the development environment, it is the hardware.

Are you saying that the PS3 hardware can't run a game like Madden at 60fps? I got the impression from the article that it was more the case of EA not knowing how to achieve that level of performance yet, i.e., more of a software problem.


RE: 360 design tools
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 11:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
are you saying the development environment is good, but the cell is hard to code for? or are you saying the ps3 is not physically capable of running this game at 60fps.

the development environment is only as good as the hardware that supports it. OpenGL is not a development environment either.


RE: 360 design tools
By lompocus on 8/15/2007 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
OpenGL is far superior to DX9 and DX10.

OpenGL2.0 (X360 and PS3) = DX9
OpenGL2.1 (8800 cards) = DX10

Here is the thing, though: Even though anyone can program for it, the development cycles are a helluva lot longer.

Plus, Xbox has another advantage: it runs OpenGL2.0 AND DX9L


RE: 360 design tools
By DingieM on 8/16/2007 3:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
Xbox360 has another advantage: Tesselation engine thats also in HD2000 family.
Next to that, it has the insanely fast eDRam.

DX11 (or DX10.2+) will require tesselation hardware.


RE: 360 design tools
By lompocus on 8/16/2007 3:51:29 AM , Rating: 1
You mind saying where you found a 'requirement' for tessalation?

I'm all for it, but afaik tessalation doesn't look as good as flat out rendering a whole mountain poly for poly. E.G.: 1 million polys> 100 poly mountain, If you know what I mean.

ATI said they would hope tessalation to be incorporated later on.

It isn't required, however.


conspiracy theory
By ryedizzel on 8/15/2007 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
anyone else think Peter Moore may have something to do with this? haha




RE: conspiracy theory
By adam92682 on 8/15/2007 11:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
Ya I agree. He had them limit the maximum FPS to 30 on PS3 to help out his friends at Microsoft


RE: conspiracy theory
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 11:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
EA was (and probably still is) losing market share/money, and they brought in moore to restructure the company. Making money as someone pointed out to me before is obviously the driving force for this decision.


RE: conspiracy theory
By killerroach on 8/15/2007 2:00:11 PM , Rating: 3
Bringing in Peter Moore to help your company make more money would be like hiring Eeyore to improve company morale.

That's all I'm saying.


RE: conspiracy theory
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
i almost had to look up eeyore before i realized what you were talking about haha. good ol woonie the pooh.

Theres nothing wrong with peter moore though, he knows what hes doing. Sure is a weird coincidence that it was decided not to put in the effort for a ps3 release though, Moore being a former MS employee and all.


RE: conspiracy theory
By parithon on 8/15/2007 3:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
This is a failed conspiracy... Peter Moore wasn't even working for EA when the company would have started it's development of the game.


RE: conspiracy theory
By FITCamaro on 8/15/2007 4:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hell he was barely working for the company when the game went gold.


does it really matter
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 12:16:39 PM , Rating: 4
When its all said and done, will 30fps vs 60fps even be noticeable. If you can watch 1080p movies at 24fps, I think we will all be ok playing football at 30. There are fast movements in football, but with the screen always facing downfield, will anyone even notice these 'quicker' animations.
Its not like the user has to make a 360 turn like in a FPS.




RE: does it really matter
By theprodigalrebel on 8/15/2007 1:15:13 PM , Rating: 3
You have a point but I think the argument is that the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are (at least theoretically) equally powerful. It's not like the previous generation where the Xbox had superior hardware to the PS2. From all that I've read, there's nothing you can do on the 360 that you can't on the PS3 - or vice versa.

But this is all theoretical. Practically, what we have here is System A running a game at half the speed of System B - even though they have equal processing power. And EA isn't the only one - early this year, Valve's Gabe Newell had some pretty harsh words on development on the PS3.

Their software development tools definitely aren't up to snuff.


RE: does it really matter
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 1:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
Oh i fully understand you argument, and some would argue the ps3 is actually more powerful. But the fact remains i think this is getting blown out of per portion, if nobody can tell the difference between the two, what does it matter?


RE: does it really matter
By parithon on 8/15/2007 3:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
The human eye can see a difference between 30 and 60 fps, although it's more subconscience I believe. In otherwords, 60fps will inherently feel more smooth then 30fps.


RE: does it really matter
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 3:58:56 PM , Rating: 3
I am not here to deny the differences between 60 and 30 fps.
Your eyes can perceive the difference in 'smoothness' but only in certain situations, usually involving a lot of movement.

But as i said before, in football the background remains fixed unless the ball is intercepted or fumbled, in which the play is slowed down into almost slow motion during the change of angle. unless you keep your eyes fixed on a player or object that is moving very quickly your eyes will not be able to perceive the difference either. (I don't know about you but i don't keep my eyes on the receiver all the way down the field, unless you like to get sacked)

I am not going to get into a debate with you though, as there are many forums out there that have done so. but i once again point you too 24fps movies, you will be hardpressed to tell the difference between 24fps and 30fps if you are watching a documentary or a slow moving film. Its not until you put on your favorite action flick that you notice the movie is not as smooth.


It makes sense
By Chaotic42 on 8/15/2007 10:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that with consoles, getting familiar with the technology and coding differences between them is everything. It's probably in a console maker's best interest to make coding as easy as physically possible. I keep hearing (through 15th hand rumors, mind you) how hard it is to code for the PS3.

Maybe this will be enough to get Sony to make coding for the PS4 easier.




RE: It makes sense
By philsworth on 8/15/2007 10:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
I think Sony will keep any newer consoles aligned with development of the Cell chip so coding will become more and more familiar as tools, compilers and knowledge mature so when PS4 arrives development will be a lot easier. I also think we will be on the ray tracing by then and that will simplify game development for everyone.

This is obviously just pure speculation:

IBM will be putting out tiny nm (it's already 65nm) next generation Cell chips with about 64 SPU's each.

Game graphics can then be ray traced (which they can do on a single current cell but it is just not quite powerful enough) and much more simple, cheaper and quicker to create. There will be no need for a graphics chip.

All the physics and AI code will be easily ported to the newer cell chips and there will be an existing base of expertise, cell compilers tools, a lot of which will be freely available coming from open source and scientific sources. Backwards compatibility Cell code will already be there.

The thing will have a massive solid state disk in it and a legacy blu ray drive that will take the latest four layer 100GB blu ray disks.

It will be dirt cheap and mass production of Cell chips will have been going on for about 6 or seven years by this point, blu ray drive will be like DVD now, memory might still cost a bit, so may a large solid state drive but I expect it to be fairly cheap all the same.


RE: It makes sense
By Flunk on 8/15/2007 11:10:50 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, multiple cell chips is the worst thing that they could possibly do. In order to properly utilize a cell processor you need to have one thread per SPU (and one for the main core).

A normal cell CPU has 8 SPU and one main core (can't remember the name offhand). which means functionaly you will need 9 threads (very difficult to program) for each additional processor you need another 9 threads (and something for them to do or the processing is wasted).

A 4 chip cell processor system would be 4 times as difficult to program as the PS3. It doesn't matter how "familiar" the programmers are with the architecture if they have to use 4 times as many threads. The software complexity would be rediculous.

Basically, the problem with the Cell is that it is designed in a way that is overly complex and time consumeing to program for. Adding more cells will exacerbate the problem. What Sony really needs to do with their next system is launch it with better developer tools. That is where the xbox really shines.

But who knows, maybe we will come up with some new ideas for processing massively parallel instructions. You never know what will happen in the future.


RE: It makes sense
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
thats a hell of a lot of speculation, you speak as though you have been to the future and have seen it.


RE: It makes sense
By parithon on 8/15/2007 3:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Although there is some speculation in his thoughts, the problem rings true. Mutli-core (ie multi-threaded) applications are very complex, and not easy to code.


RE: It makes sense
By lompocus on 8/16/2007 3:55:01 AM , Rating: 1
Amazing, you deduced the solution to life, the universe, and everything in your little head.

Explain to me this, then: Based on your logic, IBM should be using ONLY cell chips for their new supercomputer based on cell and the new petaflop supercomputer. Why is it, then, that on both they are using either powerpc chips or Opterons, at a ratio of about 1:1 compared to cells?

Cell is not all that and a bag of chips. A Pentium 4 hyperthreaded @ 3GHz is not as fast as a Pentium D stock @ 3GHz non-hyperthreaded.


BAH... The Madden Franchise Blows
By Homerboy on 8/15/2007 10:22:29 AM , Rating: 5
Simple as that. The game is horrible and has been for a long time now. I don't care what FPS its running at. Give me back my ESPN.




By parithon on 8/15/2007 3:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you havn't read the reviews of the new game. Apparently they made it... better :)


RE: BAH... The Madden Franchise Blows
By omnicronx on 8/15/2007 3:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
historical sales of the madden series would tend to disagree, its the only EA series i can think of that is unchallenged in its market. It was better than ESPN when it was around and its better now. Of course without competition expanding the madden feature set has slowed down, but madden has brought us some of the best game modes in all of sports, including franchise, manager mode, and career mode. If you can think of anything ESPN has to offer besides what ESPN hardcores call more 'realistic gameplay' my ears are open.


By FITCamaro on 8/15/2007 4:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
I actually bought ESPN NFL 2K5 before EA bought the exclusive license to the NFL. You couldn't give me a copy of Madden. I'd trade it in at EB Games. The $5 they'd give me is worth more than it.

Madden sells well now because its the only thing out there. No one else can make NFL games. The game has been rehashed so many times its not even funny. Every year all they do is make the graphics prettier and add one small new feature that they say makes the game groundbreaking. The same goes for the rest of the Madden sports series. They buy exclusive licenses to create the games so no one else can compete.

ESPN NFL 2K5 had all those features you talk about Madden having. And in football isn't realism what matters most? Shouldn't a game thats supposed to be about football actually feel like you're playing football? That'd be like Gran Turismo playing like Need for Speed and still trying to tout the title of the "Ultimate Driving Simulator".


the real problem with EA
By Quiksel on 8/15/2007 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it was out intent to put out the best possible with Madden across 10 platforms

hmm, perhaps if they were not always trying to sell these games on every known platform out there, they could put a little more resources towards the PS3 projects? Perhaps?

I'm always shocked to see arguments like this used. Just because you want to make big money on every platform out there, make a decision to devote less than sufficient resources to making the game as good as the other platforms, doesn't mean that the console itself is to blame. Give me a break. If you want to make a PS3 game, for the love of God, spend the budget required to do so.

EA is quite fond of using these franchises as the same game on every platform and marketing them as such. Once people see the obvious differences (60fps vs. 30fps is rather stark, even to the uninitiated), confront them about it, it's all the consoles fault and QQQ'n about that they haven't had enough time with it. EA, you're like one of the biggest dev's out there. Certainly if ANYONE can throw money at a project in order to do it right, you are the one to do so.

Argh. I've had enough of this. I'm going to go look at some LOLCats and try and cool off.

~q




RE: the real problem with EA
By Verran on 8/15/2007 11:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to make a PS3 game, for the love of God, spend the budget required to do so.

quote:
Certainly if ANYONE can throw money at a project in order to do it right, you are the one to do so.


Perhaps you forget that these companies are intended to make profits from their software? At some point, they can't just dump money into the game or they'll never make it back.

Despite what we'd like to think from time to time, these companies are not run by monkeys. The concept is called "low hanging fruit". Easier development means more profitable. Companies follow profit. It's their job.

The 360 is in more homes, which means more sales. On top of that, every 360 game sold will make them more money (because development was cheaper). The choice is easy.


RE: the real problem with EA
By Quiksel on 8/15/2007 11:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with ya 100%. But my point is that I *just can't stand it* when they try and pass it off like they just can't make it happen for some reason OTHER THAN the fact that they just won't pony up the resources necessary to pull it off. Plain and simple.

They make a game for PS3 that is similar to the 360, yet it's not up to the same standard of quality as the 360, sell it for the same price as the 360, get called out on making a less-than-their-best effort for PS3, then complain about problems with the development process. What then, are we to conclude? EA is shifting blame of their own development mistakes onto a product that is quite capable to be developed on because it's convenient (and popular right now among the fanboys). If they knew they couldn't do it right, why'd they even make it? Oh, that's right, they're EA, they try and make money on anything that can be marketed.

I know this sounds all negative and anti-EA, pro-Sony fanboy drivel, but I promise that I'm playing about as fair as I can given the track record of both of these companies. EA is spinning this thing as best they can to avoid just the shear fact that they made a mistake in the PS3 dev cycle in order to maximize profits. Sony has a tough system to code for. We all know this, yet somehow both still keep doing it to us. When will we learn?


RE: the real problem with EA
By Verran on 8/15/2007 11:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We all know this, yet somehow both still keep doing it to us.

They can only "do it to you" if you let them. You bought the PS3 of your own accord.
quote:
When will we learn?

For about nine million strong, the answer is now. I have a Wii, and no intentions of buying PS3 or 360. I won't debate that the graphics are sub-par, but I've had more than enough of this "bleeding edge" console battle.
quote:
I'm with ya 100%. But my point is that I *just can't stand it* when they try and pass it off like they just can't make it happen for some reason OTHER THAN the fact that they just won't pony up the resources necessary to pull it off. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure that you are with me. You keep making it sound like EA's just too stubborn to invest in the PS3 version. The problem is that EA can't win. If they release it like it is, people tell them to spend more and make it better. If they spend more and make it better, the price has to go up and people cry about that. If they don't make the game at all, then people REALLY cry. You make it sound like you want them to take a loss on the game just to make it better. Would you?


RE: the real problem with EA
By Quiksel on 8/15/2007 2:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
well, i don't even own a PS3, I'm a Wii owner much like yourself.

quote:
You keep making it sound like EA's just too stubborn to invest in the PS3 version.

Well, I think that in a large part, this is true. They certainly have said they haven't put the time in, but it comes off like they really didn't say it. This is largely my point, and mostly why I get so mad at this company these days.

Many of the enthusiasts here are smart enough to know that many of the sports games are cash cows to the big devs, and really no matter how sucky the games are, people will still buy it each and every year that they are released.

Maybe what I need to try and clarify is that I'm really not digging all the PR that seems to ooze from this DT post from the EA camp. It's a slick way of saying we really didn't try, but try to not let that get in the way of things. It will get better, we promise. Does it ever really get any better? Not according to the track record.

I'm still waiting on BF2 on the PC to actually be a decent game. They certainly promised at release to get stuff fixed, and I loved it when it first came out, but each patch has only gone to make a decent game quite frustrating. Then BF2142 was announced, promising to make all those BF2 frustrations go out the window! What happened there? Same problems! Believe me, my money has not gone to EA since. I hope they get better, but I haven't seen anything to that end.

~q


Not surprising
By DrKlahn on 8/15/2007 1:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm always baffled when people speak of the "power" of the PS3. It's not a big secret that games don't lend themselves well to threading. Developers are just now starting to really use multicore processors. So the advantage of the Cell isn't much from a gaming perspective. Then you're left with a butchered Geforce 7800 with a 128bit memory path and 256MB of memory. Compare that with the 360's DX9+ GPU with 512MB of memory and you have the answer to the FPS disparity. I don't console game, but I have to shake my head when I see all these people amazed that the PS3 isn't this godly gaming powerhouse.




RE: Not surprising
By michal1980 on 8/15/2007 1:21:29 PM , Rating: 3
the 360 has 512 mb of video ram that it can use.

But that 512 is the total amount of ram.

the ps3 has a 256/256 split.

to me there is no real difference, the 360 will never be able to access all the 512 for just video, unless there is nothing else running.

the ps3 will never be able to access more the 256. the 512 design might be better, but the answer is not as simple.

Why not just take EAs words

Madden 08 for xbox 360 = 3.5 years of work
Madden 08 for ps3 = 1.5 years of work.

Last years madden for the 360 ran at 30fps if I remeber ok.


RE: Not surprising
By Darkon on 8/16/2007 6:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
You do know that RSX can access XDR ram also ?


RE: Not surprising
By encia on 8/16/2007 8:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
Xenos has unified shaders with 64 HW shader threads (refer to nVidia’s Giga-threads* or ATI’s Ultra-threads*).

*SMT for GPUs.


Still keeping the PS3
By Eurasianman on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Still keeping the PS3
By AMDfreak on 8/15/2007 10:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
Have you been living under a rock? F@H (http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html) already has a PS3 client.


RE: Still keeping the PS3
By AMDfreak on 8/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Still keeping the PS3
By Eurasianman on 8/15/2007 12:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, I haven't! I've completed 30 WUs already!


RE: Still keeping the PS3
By Verran on 8/15/2007 10:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the current F@H client for the PS3 is already SMP. With the crazy productivity it puts out, I think it's safe to assume it's using all the cores.


RE: Still keeping the PS3
By Eurasianman on 8/15/2007 12:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know... ~330 points for a WU... weak!!!

My Core 2 Duo runs SMP client gets around ~1200 points for a WU!

However, PS3 - 8 hours to complete; PC - 25 hours to complete. Overall, in a day, PS3 = 990 Points; PC ~ 1200 Points.


game of chicken
By konekobot on 8/15/2007 1:45:40 PM , Rating: 3
hopefully this is another reason for sony to increase market share by cutting the price of the console by a big margin. A lot of people have been waiting to see how things pan out. Right now they have to worry about overheating 360's or overpriced PS3's. Sony is probably waiting to see how the public reacts to MGS4, FFXII, and even Gran Turismo in relation to sales of the console.

I don't think they'll get the sales figures they want though, because it's still too expensive to buy a console at $600-- ignoring the fact that you have to then buy at least one game-you-actually-want and another controller. Plus, I don't think anyone really believes their bait-and-switch price drop was a real value. No one believes that if you can sell a 60GB PS3 at $500, then an 80GB PS3 should cost $100 more, when the difference in price, from 60GB to 80GB, for sony is only maybe $10. Actually, with price drops in hdd over the time from launch to the "price cut" it probably cost sony nothing to switch the hdd.

The hardware is definitely not inferior, their first year of games is on par with the 360's first year of games, and they already have a global fanbase. The only reason sony isn't doing better, is because their console is about $200 too expensive. they took a loss on their last console, and they say they're taking a loss on this one. They're gonna have to go-all-in and trade a bigger loss for the far more valuable commodity of a bigger market share.

i've always been anti-xbox 360 because i'm not a big first person shooter fan (which is the main draw to buying a 360 in my opinion). However, i've had fun playing it at my friends' house. So i'll give sony until the 360 starts making a cool running box on a 45nm process. If the price isn't around $400 by then, then the XBOX just won another Convert.




RE: game of chicken
By konekobot on 8/15/2007 1:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
oops, i meant 65nm process. i do still want to game in THIS generation of consoles afterall

;p


It's Official, but Not Surprising
By deeznuts on 8/15/2007 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 4
EA themselves saying it is official, but it's not surprising. People fail to realize the last two Madden's on the 360 were 30 fps as well. This is the first year Madden is running at 60 fps.




Quit unnecessary CGI cutscenes
By mankopi on 8/17/2007 11:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you heard me right! PCs dont use bluray or hd-dvd for games, yet they look amazing. Console games are never better looking than PC ones. If a game like crysis can fit on a DVD why cant console games do the same? It's all the useless cutscenes and CGI movies they pack in there that take up all the space. If i want to watch a movie, i go to a theater but when i want to PLAY a game, I expect to PLAY and not watch useless cutscenes.




RE: Quit unnecessary CGI cutscenes
By mankopi on 8/17/2007 5:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, wrong post - not relevant in the above article!


Well
By cbo on 8/15/2007 1:09:19 PM , Rating: 3
I guess this is another example of a plus for Microsoft rushing their machine to market. I still waiting for my xbox to come back from Texas though! :)




Why I won't buy
By wbcollegekid on 8/15/2007 10:39:41 AM , Rating: 2
After reading the reviews, I have decided not to purchase Madden 08 for Playstation 3. No football for me this year, unless another publisher comes out with a better alternative.




EA games
By soulbabel on 8/15/2007 10:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
EA sports games were the first games I played on my PS3 last December, and I swear they all felt like half-assed 360 ports (games would stutter from time to time in singleplayer mode as if there was no optimization). It's probably why there were able to get the games launched so quickly after the PS3 launched. Oh well, whatever, it just shows how PS3 development still needs some time to mature. I've used the PS3 mainly as a bluray player, but demos like Heaven Sword and Ghost Recon have finally gotten me excited about PS3 games.




By PAPutzback on 8/15/2007 12:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sony should of been knocking on one of the biggest developers door (EA) from the begiing and said "Here is Kwazimoto, one our lead hardware designers. He will teach you everything you need to know to write the most optimized code". Not only would EA have been able to write decent code, if that's even possible for EA, but Kwazi could of worked hand in hand with the team back home to create a more user friendly toolset.

Look at MS and how they are freely giving out their easy to use XNA developer tools. You'll have that tool used in thousands of colleges and tens of thousands of students will be familiar with it. So whose console do you think is going to benefit from that.




easy out
By 3v1lkr0w on 8/16/2007 5:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
I think EA blaming the 30 FPS on the fact that they only had 1 yr to work with the PS3 is just an easy out. Put alittle more time into it and you could make it 60 FPS. Theres bound to be some gmaes out there that are multi-platform and run at both 60 FPS, I could be wrong, but I think EA is just taking the easy way out.




Am I the only one...????
By Legionosh on 8/16/2007 10:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
...who seems to remember the Fight Night (an EA game) was FIRST shown on the PS3 (not 360) at E3 2005 (if I am not mistaken).

My point being that everyone makes it out like EA only got the PS3 dev kits like 6 months ago, but they have apparently had them for FAR longer that that (a least prior to E3 2005). Otherwise how else would the Fight Night demo have been put on for display at E3?

I don't know how long they had the 360 dev kits, but it probably wasn't too much longer (heck they might gotten them AFTER the PS3 dev kits...I have no way of knowing).

Anyway this isn't meant to bash the PS3 (I have one, along with a 360 and a Wii) nor necessarily EA (they DO occasionally make a good game), but to make it a point that I don't necessarily buy his statement, at least not 100%.

Personally I think the Cell IS harder to program for than the 360. Since basically everyone on the planet says that I'm inclined to agree. Not to mention the installed user base ALWAYS has an impact on the game development budget.

Why spend $10 million (or however much they estimated to budget originally) on a PS3 game that won't sell enough to cover the dev costs? You have to lower your budget, cut corners where you need to, and try to get it out in a form that it acceptable given the circumstances.

(as someone stated, no companies are in business to LOSE money, regardless of what fanboys on all sides think)

It IS a matter of simple economics. While Madden IS a huge selling franchise (often to the point of being annoying), without enough of a user base to make a profit, the developers have to make compromises.

Just some food for thought (as well a little common sense)

Kevin

legionosh@msn.com




Politics
By rupaniii on 8/18/2007 10:52:02 AM , Rating: 1
Honestly, Sony's gonna need to sue EA and Microsoft for collusion. If Madden runs better on 360 than PS3, people will buy 360 for Madden, and that's all they'll buy. It has alot more to do with Peter Moore suddenly working for EA and Don Mattrick taking over at MicrosoftXBox Div. From Kotaku
http://kotaku.com/gaming/confirmed/peter-moore-res...
-----
Mattrick will take over as the senior vice president of IEB at Microsoft, effective July 30. Mattrick was the founder of Distinctive Software Inc., which operated as a private company from 1982 until its merger with EA in 1991. Mattrick held various senior positions within EA, most recently as president of Worldwide Studios, until his resignation in February 2006. In February 2007, Mattrick began working with the Entertainment and Devices Division at Microsoft as an external advisor.
----- If you look around, you'll also find stories about Mattrick brining in other 'Trusted Employees' from EA to MS as well. SONY also need to challenge EA's Exclusive NFL License on the basis that they are going to use it to favor one machine over another rather than attempt to make the best game for everyone and maximize NFL Profits, which is ACTUALLY the goal of the contract for the NFL. Hey, IF the PS3 game weren't online, i could accept that. XBOX LIVE is a great system, and a 360 strength to support. No doubt. HOWEVER, on comparable systems, where most games released are smoother on PS3, honestly, for Madden to have half the framerate in light of the executive inbreeding above, smells of an attempt to Monopolize the NFL Sports Genre by use of differentiated quality and features in favor of the Microsoft System, which is designed to generate superior sales for said system in an artificial manner. At which point, the NFL is losing an audience of people who have PS3 and will not buy an inferior product rather than spend MORE money on a machine, or who will have less interest in NFL due to my dissatisfaction with the quality of NFL properties available on my Gaming system. The NFL, in spirit, granted the Licnese due to EA's historical strength of deliverying the best experience in a consistent manner across mulitiple platforms. This is no longer the case apparently,and could very well be seen as a violation of their NFL license contract agreement with NFL. This should cause NFL to allow other 3rd party developers to be granted license again so that a better product could be developed for PS3, and perhaps even Wii.




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins









botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki