Slashdot Mirror


Orange Box Dysfunctional on the PS3?

Via Next Generation, a preview of the PS3 version of the Orange Box . 1up is the site running the piece, and it's notable because it's so incredibly negative. PS3 fans may have some frustrations in store when the game pack releases soon: "After spending a significant amount of time with a near final version of the PS3 game, it's apparent that this version suffers from a number of technical flaws, which at best merely hinder game play and at worst make the experience downright unplayable. Framerate is a consistent issue throughout the Half-Life series of games included in The Orange Box. One moment you'll be cruising through the game at 30 frames per second and the next you'll be enjoying a slideshow of series protagonist Gordon Freeman cruising down the river. "

154 comments

  1. I wonder why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the PC and Xbox 360 versions were handled by Valve, the PS3 port was handed off to an internal team at EA.

    Aha! There's the problem!

    1. Re:I wonder why... by ThirdPrize · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was probably the Madden team.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    2. Re:I wonder why... by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Specifically, EA UK. From Wikipedia, their resume:

      *Burnout Legends
      *Burnout Dominator
      *Catwoman
      *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
      *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
      *Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
      *Untitled DICE Project
      *PS3 port of Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Portal and Team Fortress 2

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:I wonder why... by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was wondering why Gordon Freeman was carrying a football and wearing a Bulls helmet...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:I wonder why... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      (I should point out: the DS version of Burnout Legends, and the DS and PSP versions of Dominator.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:I wonder why... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bulls helmet? Madden doesn't do basketball, and the nba is rough, but they haven't gone to helmets yet. Bills would have worked though. Let's go with that as a typo.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    6. Re:I wonder why... by ogreinside · · Score: 1

      While the PC and Xbox 360 versions were handled by Valve Even though they were both handled by Valve, they are still not interoperable. I opened a Steam ticket asking why it is not compatible with the "Games for Windows Live" allowing Windows and Xbox 360 players to play together.

      The response was that "We felt the keyboard/mouse for PC was an unfair advantage." I responded saying that is a relative statement. My 360 buddy can't control anything via keyboard/mouse, and I can't aim worth a crap on controllers, but on our own systems we are great. Why doesn't Microsoft feel this is an issue? Or do they, and not want to admit it (thus leading to the incredible library of 2 compatible games). Why not allow open networked games that anybody can join? I don't want to crack/cheat/bot anything, I just want to play with my friend.

      So their response was that either I had to buy a 360 and another copy of "The Orange Box," or my friend had to buy a PC and another copy of "The Orange Box." I am so frustrated with this response, but it seems like a good bit of extra income to require your consumers to purchase multiple copies.

      The same is true with games like Guitar Hero 3. Why these are not compatible with each other I still do not understand. Sure it's a bit extra work, but all the controllers are the same. Nobody has an advantage.

      I'm not even going to worry about the PS3 version. I've learned that if it is available for PC, always get that version.
      --
      "The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care, right?" -Offspring
    7. Re:I wonder why... by rob1980 · · Score: 1

      Could have been the Buffalo Bulls

    8. Re:I wonder why... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Funny

      EA programmer: The bugs can't be fixed. Is very hard.
      EA exec: We'll just buy out Orange box the franchise then.
      EA programmer: Good. I am going on vacation.
      EA exec: You can't. We bought out your vacation days. And your soul too.

    9. Re:I wonder why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man I must have missed the Madden / NBA crossover.

      Tell me, can you unlock Bird, and is he as good of a cornerback as it's claimed?

    10. Re:I wonder why... by twistedsymphony · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here are some reasons...
      • correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will) but doesn't "Games for Windows Live" only work with Vista? If so that would be a very strong reason why Valve didn't sign up for it...
      • another one is that you would need to pay the $50 annual contract for a Live Gold subscription to play with your friend while most PC gamers are used to playing online for free. Also you would need to connect to MS servers for patches updates etc. while Valve has their own Steam system... EA had the same problem with the Live system back in the Xbox 1 days because they wanted to use their own servers instead of the XBL servers... eventually a compromise was reached and special provisions were made for EA but something like that may need to be worked out with Valve before you see any of their games on the Live network.
      • Finally, considering that Games for Windows Live is a "new" platform and Half Life 2 predates its buy a fair margin, they would likely have to re-build a substantial portion of the multiplayer code to be in compliance with the Live system... and that's something most developers wont bother to do.
      In all likelihood the decision to NOT support Games for Windows Live came from the fact that they would have had many many more rabbit fanboys complaining about having to use Vista and Live than they got complaints of not being able to play between PC and 360 users.
    11. Re:I wonder why... by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      tells you how much I'm [not] into sports...

      Sadly, "Bulls" was not a typo.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    12. Re:I wonder why... by djikster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every single PS3 game made by EA that I have played has been beyond bad in terms of sustaining a constant frame rate (demos, didn't bother to buy after playing them)! I cannot believe that EA is pumping out games on the conveyor belt without any QA, or if they do QA, their threshold for accepting a product is so good, that I do not want anything from them. Luckily, nowdays you can actually download the demo before having to buy it, so the gamers can at least taste the game before getting PO'd by its quality :)

    13. Re:I wonder why... by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A HUGE deal in Valve's current multiplayer engine is its anti-cheating code. My guess is that they want to keep individual environments as locked down and identical as possible so that cheaters can't exploit differences between the platforms.

      Besides they are right about console controller vs mouse/keyboard for control. Average mouse/keyboard users can out-control excellent console controller users. The very best console users would not be able to hold their own against average or above average PC users, this is why PC users don't tend to use game controllers on their PC any more. You may be more comfortable with a keyboard and your friend may be more comfortable with a controller, but you're going to out-control him for sure.

    14. Re:I wonder why... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't be. If that were the case it wouldn't be called "The Orange Box." It'd be "Half-Life 2008" and we'd still be at Black Mesa, just with bigger textures.

    15. Re:I wonder why... by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 1

      Well as the BSK might say...

      "If you can't play a sport... BE ONE!"

      --
      Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
    16. Re:I wonder why... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Super Star mode where you get to play any position in the game, including the head crab or crowbar!

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    17. Re:I wonder why... by LKM · · Score: 1

      I'm not even going to worry about the PS3 version. I've learned that if it is available for PC, always get that version.

      I intended to get the PS3 version, because:

      1. I don't install games on my Windows installation because games on Windows generally tend to install all kinds of spyware; not to mention that I prefer to play games using the projector, sitting on my couch; just pop in the game, grab the controller and go. No booting and installing and all that boring stuff
      2. I don't want go get the 360 version because I don't pay for Gold; I use my PS3 for online games

      So hopefully, EA will fix the issues before release.

    18. Re:I wonder why... by FlyveHest · · Score: 2, Funny

      In all likelihood the decision to NOT support Games for Windows Live came from the fact that they would have had many many more rabbit fanboys complaining about having to use Vista and Live than they got complaints of not being able to play between PC and 360 users.
      So, THATS where bunny-hoppin' originates!
    19. Re:I wonder why... by antiseptic_poetry · · Score: 1

      Average mouse/keyboard users can out-control excellent console controller users. The very best console users would not be able to hold their own against average or above average PC users, this is why PC users don't tend to use game controllers on their PC any more.

      But that's untested - you're basically guessing and making assumptions. The only game that allows PC users and console users to compete is Shadowrun, and the debate on the best control method is not clear cut. Mouse/keyboard gives an advantage to very fine movements (i.e. aiming), but for 99% of a FPS match this doesn't really matter. Have you seen expert Halo players play??

    20. Re:I wonder why... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I am a gamer, I play all kinds of games: shooters, strategy, rpgs, etc etc etc
      I have never been the victim of any spyware programs or virusses from games.

      to each his own though

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    21. Re:I wonder why... by LKM · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't play any online games like WoW then; another issue with PC games I have is the DRM, for example limiting the number of installs in games like BioShock.

    22. Re:I wonder why... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      heh I just quit WoW last week and I also have Bioshock, it hasn't been a problem at all :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    23. Re:I wonder why... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Good for you. I hope it's still not a problem when you want to revisit BioShock in 5 or 10 years.

    24. Re:I wonder why... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      No problem at all, I am using the revoke tool when I uninstall and if the company goes belly up, I'll find a crack.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    25. Re:I wonder why... by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      It's really reachable more by logical conclusion. You admit that the mouse gives better fine movement control, so I won't defend that point (besides it's easy to defend since consoles typically assist with aiming while PC's do not).

      As far as rapidly accessing control elements, such as weapon selection or interface interaction, PC users have a clear advantage here too. My mouse has 7 buttons by itself. Binding other controls to keys near the WASD standard movement keys gives me 11 keys within easy reach, and 12 more which are close enough that I would not have to look away from the screen to reach them. So I have 18 easy buttons plus 12 somewhat easy buttons. Switching to a specific weapon by pressing a number key is much faster than either entering a menu to select it or scrolling through all of my available weapons.

      So PC users have both finer control and more control options available to them. What advantage does a console controller offer over a keyboard and mouse? There's a reason PC users don't hook up game pads any more.

    26. Re:I wonder why... by antiseptic_poetry · · Score: 1

      Well a console controller is infinitely more usable in fighting or driving games. Did you ever try and play Grand Theft Auto III or any of it's sequels on the PC? Wow, I had to use a PC gamepad for that (at least for the driving parts).

      If we're strictly talking about FPS, both 360 and PS3 pads have enough buttons to provide all useful FPS functions, plus the addition of analog triggers and joysticks which are unique features not found on PC. But my original point is, the ability to aim more accurately and switch weapons faster will *not* allow an average PC gamer to beat the best console gamers. Don't kid yourself into thinking the control method is that far ahead, or that being good at a FPS is purely about how well you have mastered the control scheme.

      Certainly in Shadowrun it's: Good PC gamer > Good Console gamer > Average PC gamer.

    27. Re:I wonder why... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      The helmet having an NBA team on it is a feature, not a bug!

      --
      +++OK ATH
  2. PS3 gamers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beggars can't be choosers.

  3. ...and multiplayer by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why people spend any money on a proprietary system is a mystery to me. There aren't nearly as many Free games of AAA production values as there are proprietary games of AAA production values.

    Go open, build a PC, Install Linux, go to town ... Even with proprietary games, not enough multiplayer games are designed for use with SDTV or EDTV output and four USB game controllers. Developers of multiplayer games for PC seem to be of the general mindset that each player has his own computer and his own copy of the game. This is often not true for multiple players living in one household. Consoles, on the other hand, allow players to share one system, one (usually larger) monitor, and one copy of the game.
    1. Re:...and multiplayer by xhrit · · Score: 1

      "not enough multiplayer games are designed for use with SDTV or EDTV output and four USB game controllers. Developers of multiplayer games for PC seem to be of the general mindset that each player has his own computer and his own copy of the game."

      That is because you can build a multi-head system, with each seat getting its own keyboard, mouse, display, and x11 session. You can have 4 people playing Quake Wars on one linux box. Or, if you want, you can have 2 seats playing quake wars, while the other 2 play Unreal Tournament 3. Try that on a console.

      http://linuxgazette.net/124/smith.html

  4. PRE-RELEASE by Zoidbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What part of pre-release do they not understand.

    I get EA are funing today. I also expect 1UP to be precluded from ever seeing unfinished code again.. Talk about killing your buisness..

    Slate it, if it hits the shelves like this, but lets at least wait until then, before passing judgement!

    1. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      This is the POINT of previews, though!

      A preview is supposed to talk about how the pre-release looks -- and I don't know that I've ever seen a game that was unplayably slow in pre-release suddenly becoming clean and fast in a final shipment.

      Gaming sites don't get blacklisted for saying that a pre-release sucks. If they did, there'd be no previews anymore.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    2. Re:PRE-RELEASE by roadkill_cr · · Score: 1

      FTA: "With the clock ticking, EA has a limited amount of time to fix the glaring issues which plague this port of The Orange Box."

      Yeah, they sure don't seem to understand "pre-release" at all. Oh wait, they DO acknowledge the possibility of fixing the product before release. My bad.

      Besides, what is 1UP supposed to do if they play such buggy code? Say everything his A-okay and assume it will be fine by release? No, they told it like it is - the port is currently in an awful state, and EA is going to have to haul ass to make it halfway decent for a PS3 release.

    3. Re:PRE-RELEASE by gravis777 · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same thing. Surely Steam / Sierra would not release such a horribly buggy version of the game. Sierra (at least in the past) has always been excellent at quality control, and this is a MUCH anticipated release.

      It should be interesting to noted that not one place in here does it mention which firmware was used. Firmware 2.01 was just released a couple of days ago, and it does say that two of the main things fixed was better support for PS2 games, and major improvements for certain PS3 titles (although it does not say which ones). Most of the issues I have seen with poor game performance for new PS3 games has always been resolved almost immediately after release(but not always, sometimes they take a while) with a firmware update.

    4. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Zoidbot · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have seen exactly this.

      If anyone picked up the free demo disc of Ratchet And Clank Future Tools Of Destruction on PS3, from Gamestop, it looked nice, but had quite bad framerate issues, and screen tearing. This was about 2 weeks prior to release.

      The final cut of the game, is perfect, with perhaps the best looking and smoothest visuals ever seen in a videogame.

      It really depends on how old the cut of the game code was, but I doubt SCEA would authorize it's release, if it's as bad as 1Up say it is.

      So I can see this playing out 2 ways.

      1/ The game comes out, and it's fine, and LOADS of trashy sites (this one included) are make to look like idiotic fanboys.

      2/ SCEA block it's release, because it's sub par.

      3/ SCEA don't block it, but it's still sub par, and then EA and Valve get it in the neck for sloppy coding (as the PS3 has been proven to be a great console, if you can be bothered to learn it).

    5. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hate people who pull that crap. Yes, it's a pre-release. Yes, they might be able to fix it before release.

      But when release is supposed to be so soon, there's only so much you can do to actually release it. Problems that exist in previews and demos often AREN'T fixed by release. Especially when the release is merely weeks away.

      Face it, chances are the PS3 won't be able to get a bug-free Source engine. This speaks more to how insanely difficult Sony made PS3 development than anything else. Either it's going to get delayed even further, past when it would have mattered, or the final release will contain these bugs. Bugs take time to be fixed, and when the bugs are probably caused by the PS3 itself, it may take a long time to find workarounds.

      Labeling something a "beta" doesn't absolve responsibility for fixing bugs.

    6. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      It's more complicated than just "if you can be bothered to learn it" -- making effective use of the PS3 frequently requires a complete redesign, and if your basic engine requires more memory than is left over for you after the hypervisor, you're just screwed. Sony made some very bad engineering decisions at the end to cut costs, and it shows.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    7. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that there are plenty of other games getting past these so-called "bad engineering decisions". Even funnier the PS3 has the same about of RAM as the xbox 360 too.

    8. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Er, no. The PS3 has 256MB of RAM -- VRAM doesn't count. However, the OS chews up about 72MB of that, leaving you with less, and you need extra space for SPE buffers. The 360's crappy unified architecture, in practice, gives you a lot closer to a real full 256MB of RAM -- with only about 32 taken away by the OS.

      The decision to cut back from 512MB of XDR to 256MB was a crappy decision.

      Yeah, lots of companies, developing specifically for PS3, are able to work around the memory limitations -- but some games are built around the assumption of at least 200MB available for the actual game engine.

      There's no defenders of the memory shortage who are actual PS3 programmers. There's some apologists who will admit that it's an issue, but argue that it can be worked around, but the people who claim it's not an issue are, curiously, never actually people who have developed for the target.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    9. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Cowclops · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lesson: Valve is the company that makes Half Life. Steam is the method they use to distribute it. Sierra is the company that originally published Half Life 1 but has had nothing to do with it at all since then.

    10. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Orange Box PS3 was supposed to be out about a month ago. It's now due out in December. Really, version that 1Up got to play should going into production any day now if EA want to meet the new release date. The game's engine isn't going to come on leaps and bounds in that sort of time.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:PRE-RELEASE by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      The 360 has 512 MB of RAM.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    12. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, remember that the Source engine is over a decade old, and is likely to be riddled with dynamic allocations based on the premise It would never make it to console. EA were never going to re-write the source engine, especially not to suite the data parallelism arcitechture of the PS3. I'm sure the pressed final build will be just fine.

      Infact I would bet good money that the build 1Up recieved was months old taking into consideration the various levels of approval the disc probably had to go through (EA/Valve/Sony) before it was released...

    13. Re:PRE-RELEASE by imr · · Score: 1

      The dogs are after sony and they have been for a while now.

    14. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but since it has a unified architecture, a big chunk of that is stolen for video -- how much is hard to say.

      In practice, they have comparable supplies, except that the PS3 can't skimp in VRAM to get main memory (or on main memory to get VRAM) on a game-by-game basis... And the PS3 OS takes up about 2.5x as much space as the 360 OS. The number's been dropping some, but it's still huge. Blame Sony's movie studios; they're the ones that mandated the hypervisor, so far as I can tell, and that's why the system's sort of gimped by running on a virtual machine.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    15. Re:PRE-RELEASE by paedobear · · Score: 1

      Excellent quality control like making sure the parent directory ISN'T deleted if you install the game in anything other than the default?

    16. Re:PRE-RELEASE by craash420 · · Score: 1

      I was a Half-Life fanatic when Steam rolled out, and it was enough to break my addiction. I imagined an executive rambling on to an engineer "Quality control? Why bother, just patch it and force the customer to update before any of our games will run." Things are much better now, but back in the day Steam was half-baked.

      --
      Extra medication for all!
    17. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Sierra / Vivendi [Universal-then-but-not-anymore] Games originally published the boxed version of Half-Life 2 as well (my UK copy only has Sierra logos at least), although later retail stuff was through EA after Valves and VUG fell out. I don't think they had much to do with the game beyond shipping the discs about though.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    18. Re:PRE-RELEASE by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      I can't really comment any further, or I might end up breaking my NDA, so... weee! From what I've seen, though, the PS3 just has some design decisions that were made without thinking about how it would actually be used for games.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    19. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not under any NDAs at the moment. :)

      I think that, in the absence of Sony Pictures, the PS3 would have had 512MB of XDR, no hypervisor, and a DVD drive, and would have cost about $100-200 less at launch. They might well still be on the original design, which wouldn't have been remade four times to try to reduce costs, games would have come out a lot sooner, and so on. They might even have been able to not do the "one SPE disabled" thing which not only gimps the system directly, but also makes it impossible to use SPE affinity correctly -- since there's no way to predict at compile or design time where there will be adjacent SPEs.

      Price savings would have come from not needing to push blu-ray (what a crock!) and not needing to spend nearly as much effort on the hypervisor and virtualization code; there would be more available memory, and the savings on using a more standard medium would have EASILY covered the cost of giving the machine a slightly roomier memory footprint -- which would have solved one of the biggest problems developers seem to be running into.

      Having enough processor power and raw speed is great, but if you haven't got enough memory for enough data to keep the CPU busy, who cares?

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    20. Re:PRE-RELEASE by nuzak · · Score: 1

      The 360 has a hypervisor too. It's just smaller. Probably more secure as a result, too.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    21. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Osty · · Score: 1

      Blame Sony's movie studios; they're the ones that mandated the hypervisor, so far as I can tell, and that's why the system's sort of gimped by running on a virtual machine.

      What does' Sony's movie business have to do with running a hypervisor? The Xbox 360 is also a hypervisor-based system, but Microsoft doesn't have a movie studio business. They went with a hypervisor approach for security -- the hypervisor makes the system much more difficult to hack, which is why we still haven't seen any valid Xbox 360 mod chips 2 years into the life of the console (the DVD-ROM firmware hack doesn't count, as that just bypassed the drive's media check and not the system's code signature check). Using a hypervisor doesn't have to eat all of your memory and kill your performance, unless you're Sony, I guess.

    22. Re:PRE-RELEASE by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Half-Life was probably one of the buggiest games I've played at LANs. We always had issues with that one. Quake 3 ran pretty much flawless in comparison.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    23. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      True enough. It's less noticable, though, partially because it's smaller, and partially because it doesn't take a large and concrete amount of CPU -- say, one full core.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    24. Re:PRE-RELEASE by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

      About half the 3D games I've worked on had major fps problems the month before going gold.

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    25. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I can't really comment any further, or I might end up breaking my NDA, so... weee! From what I've seen, though, the PS3 just has some design decisions that were made without thinking

      You didn't need to keep typing after this.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    26. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source engine is older than Half-Life 1? Half-Life came out in 1998. Actually almost EXACTLY 9 years to the day(November 19, 1998)! Unless game studios are different than the one I work at, we dont start a sequel 1 year before launching the first game. Its usually a mad scramble to get the first one done. Also as this was the first game, you wouldn't know the success, and start a new game early. In fact Half-Life 2 was released only 3 years ago(November 16, 2004). It was only officially made public May 2003. If you had done an ounce of research you would know that INCLUDING the one year delay, the game took 5 years to develop from start to finish. Remember they dont sit down on day 1 and write the engine... So the engine is at most 5years old, but most likely 3-4years (its unlikely the final engine resembled much like the one they first started on). Also you would think that valve would have counted on a future console release considering the original game went to console. Although you are correct they probably didn't count on PS3's overly complex hardware.

    27. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the unified architecture does however eliminate the waste in having textures and models loaded in both VRAM and RAM, it also moves the opposite direction as sony's "lets break everything into a fustercluck of little bits and hope everyone wants to learn to code for a massively different platform type with truly asinine resource constraints. SONY thought they could raise the barrier to multi-platform releases, and they were right, but they didn't count on being on the wrong side of the barrier.

      porting a game from the 360 to the wii means simplifying some models and textures and rethinking the control scheme (and with the classic con option you really do have a lot of flexability in this) to go from 360 to PS3 means you need to retrain your developers AND scratch basic assumptions that have been common to game development since the 3D accelerator card became common.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    28. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      I think non-unified memory may be worth it for performance reasons -- compare an onboard chipset graphics part to a part with dedicated memory.

      I don't know that I agree with your evaluation about "rethinking" the control scheme; for the most part, games that were not built around the Wii's controls tend to be subpar, simply because the options for native controls are so much different that they rebalance the game, rather than just changing which buttons you press.

      I do agree that the PS3's "novel" architecture is probably crazy. PS2 had some of the same problem, but at >50% of the market, they could afford it.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    29. Re:PRE-RELEASE by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Heads up Zoidbot, but this is a rare example of GOOD game journalism.

      Publishers are traditionally reluctant to show game journalists pre-release code because bugs and instabilities in the code may give the journalist the false impression that the game has a lot more problems that it will actually have on release. So normally when a company invites a magazine or website to see pre-release code, they have the expectation (often DEMAND) that the journalist will do a fawning puff piece on thier game.

      In this case, EA choose to show 1UP pre-release code on their game with the explicit understanding that 1UP would talk about it on their website. What EA showed them was apparently terribly broken, and 1UP described it as "near final". It shows great ethics on the part of 1UP that rather than LIE in the piece or (more likely) simply not publish about the pre-release code they saw, they instead chose to tell the TRUTH about what they saw and risk the ire of EA.

      Make no mistake, EA fucked up here.

    30. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HL2 is full of old code from HL1 (and Quake 1), we all saw it (it was leaked, remember?)

    31. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd give away half of the RAM if I could spread it among the SPUs

    32. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      onboard chipsets use slow system RAM and inferior GPU's.

      assuming that equal amounts of memory are used in both, the unified architecture saves you the space of duplicated data structures and the time shuttling data back and forth. this is assuming that the video chipset is allowed to read the RAM in use by the CPU. if the CPU and GPU simply divide it up there isn't much advantage.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    33. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the thing. Unified architecture can save space, but divided architectures can, under a broad array of circumstances, give you massive improvements in functional bandwidth, as you get the simultaneous full bandwidth of both. So, for instance, on the PS3, the CPU can write to the GPU's memory, so it can feed data to the GPU as needed, but the GPU can run without interfering with the CPU, and the CPU can run without interfering with the CPU.

      Overall, I think it's a substantially better architecture for performance, but it sacrifices some simplicity of construction -- which is sort of the PS3's underlying goal.

      In any event, I think the mere fact that nearly all computers use non-unified GPU/CPU memory architectures suggests that there is some advantage to them.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    34. Re:PRE-RELEASE by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Or how insanely crappy and directx-bound Valve made the Source engine. Not that it would necessarily fix all the porting issues, but if Valve built their games cross-platform to begin with they'd DEFINITELY have fewer problems deploying on new systems, even if a third party is handling the port. As an added benefit they'd end up with better running code on the lead platform as well.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    35. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Zoidbot · · Score: 1

      And so does the PS3. 256+256 = 512.

      Now go back to school...

    36. Re:PRE-RELEASE by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      Did you hear that? That's the sound of the conversation flying right over your head.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    37. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you had done an ounce of research you would know that INCLUDING the one year delay, the game took 5 years to develop from start to finish. Remember they dont sit down on day 1 and write the engine..."

      "Also you would think that valve would have counted on a future console release considering the original game went to console.
      I have done research in that I have seen the source. There IS code dating back to QUAKE, judging by the way memory is managed by the source engine, there is no way it was ever intended for a console.

      "Unless game studios are different than the one I work at, we dont start a sequel 1 year before launching the first game
      The studio *I* work in doesn't throw away an engine and start from scratch every time. Games development is a somewhat iterative process.

      With regards to the PS3s overly complex architecture, Its fair to say that no port will ever get the most from this system, being that it doesn't lend itself very well to the function parallelism employed on both the PC & 360.
    38. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. having to dma everything is just a hassle.

    39. Re:PRE-RELEASE by LKM · · Score: 1

      The PS3's architecture is better in theory, but since there's only 256 MB on each side, porting games from the 360 to the PS3 (which may use more than 256 MB on one of the two sides) becomes harder.

    40. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that must be why you can download and run 360 games? It's been cracked for a long time, pull your head out the sand. The PS3 remains locked for the foreseeable future.

    41. Re:PRE-RELEASE by seebs · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The original 512/256 design would have been fine, and it's generally easy to reduce VRAM usage -- just shrink a couple of textures.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    42. Re:PRE-RELEASE by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      The 360 has 512 MB of RAM.

      Yes, and the PS3 also has 512 MB of RAM, but they've both got to put their textures somewhere, the PS3 just physically divides it 50/50 into GDDR3 and XDR. Personally I would have been very happy to pay another $100 to double the RAM I was given since I already had to pay the obscene price of AU$1000 (US$900) to get something with a pitiful amount of memory but nobody gave me the choice. I'm personally amazed how great (and cheap) the PS3 still is despite the string of fuckups that dominated its development (blueray for one), I'm not sorry to own one but am sure that a nasty looking steel morningstar with me holding it could have helped in its design phase,

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    43. Re:PRE-RELEASE by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > So that must be why you can download and run 360 games?

      Yeah, with a modchip that makes the DVD report all media as official. Gosh, a bit-for-bit copy of the game can fool the system, who'da thunk it. Of course I said it was completely bulletproof and uncrackable too. Golly, you're so smart, you sure showed me.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    44. Re:PRE-RELEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's Valve's fault that Sony doesn't support the most popular gaming library ever created.

      Idiot.

    45. Re:PRE-RELEASE by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      In any event, I think the mere fact that nearly all computers use non-unified GPU/CPU memory architectures suggests that there is some advantage to them.

      Considering most modern computers are a hodgepodge of technology created along a span of nearly 30 years, how on Earth would they ever have a unified ANYTHING architecture?

  5. Why are the graphics so shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was playing games like that on my PCs over five years ago! They're far worse than what I have on the PS3 and those I've seen on friends' 360s.

    1. Re:Why are the graphics so shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are they shit? They look the same as other computer games to me.
      Is this like some audiophile thing, where some people perceive tiny differences that are completely missed by the general public?

    2. Re:Why are the graphics so shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this like some audiophile thing, where some people perceive tiny differences that are completely missed by the general public?
      No, it's just a troll. Ignore it and it might go away.
  6. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well because you pay for it once and you can normally play the newest games on it for several years with that one initial investment. is it really that much of a mystery to you? i'm curious... what sort of gaming experience do you have on Linux that would be so much better than 360/Wii/PS3 could offer?

  7. Depressing by Cy+Sperling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Meanwhile, Infinity Ward managed to put out a rock solid multi-platform FPS- COD4. If they can make it look and play so great on the PS3, why can't Valve?

    1. Re:Depressing by Alphager · · Score: 4, Informative

      Meanwhile, Infinity Ward managed to put out a rock solid multi-platform FPS- COD4. If they can make it look and play so great on the PS3, why can't Valve? Because EA (and not Valve) is responsible for the PS3-port.
    2. Re:Depressing by zehaeva · · Score: 0

      If you had bothered to read the first 3 sentences of TFA you would have realized that Valve DIDN'T do the port to the PS3.

    3. Re:Depressing by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somebody else has already pointed out that it was EA's fault, not really Valve's which is true. But it's also true that Infinity Ward did what other developers haven't - developed from scratch for the PS3. You can't port 360/PC code well to the PS3 platform. It's the painful truth. I love my PS3 but I fear that this kind of lack of portability really may hurt the platform.

      On the other hand, porting from the PS3 to the 360 has had some success to my knowledge. Maybe that's the way these developers should go?

    4. Re:Depressing by Elyscape · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, porting from the PS3 to the 360 has had some success to my knowledge. Maybe that's the way these developers should go? There's one big problem with this: Valve had already made the engine for both the PC and the Xbox. Source was originally made for the PC and was later ported to the original Xbox. Valve had experience and a codebase with both platforms. As a result, they couldn't really develop for the PS3 and port to the other platforms.
      --
      I own itburns.net. What should I put there?
    5. Re:Depressing by LinuxGeek · · Score: 1

      So my impression so far is that Valve doesn't care enough about the PS3 to do the port themselves, or to carefully track EA progress on the contracted port or to step up after this horrible PR snafu and promise that everything will be smoothed out before release.

      So far I am not impressed with Valve and their commitment to anything besides MS platforms.

      --

      Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:Depressing by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah just like how a game like Assassin's Creed was on the PS3 first, ported to the 360, and the PS3 version is the one that ended up with frame-rate issues XD

    7. Re:Depressing by Alphager · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So my impression so far is that Valve doesn't care enough about the PS3 to do the port themselves, or to carefully track EA progress on the contracted port or to step up after this horrible PR snafu and promise that everything will be smoothed out before release.

      So far I am not impressed with Valve and their commitment to anything besides MS platforms. Yup, they don't care about the PS3.
      Or more realistically: being a pure microsoft-shop they do not have the necessary knowledge to port the orange box to ps3. Makes sense to outsource that work (especially if you don't believe the ps3 is going to be important).
    8. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to point out that Valve is not directly responsible for how the PS3 port of the game turns out. From everything that I've heard, they essentially finished their code for the PC and 360 and then handed that over to one of the EA studios to port over to the PS3. The blame therefore, would fall on EA for not dedicating enough resources to properly port the game, at least the way that I see it. Granted, Valve should *ideally* have done some checking up on the EA PS3 team, but given Gabe Newell's previous comments about the PS3, I'm not overly surprised that this apparently didn't happen.

    9. Re:Depressing by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, porting from the PS3 to the 360 has had some success to my knowledge. Maybe that's the way these developers should go?"
      Only if they have a desire for the PS3 to be a hit.
      From what I have seen the PS3 is really hard to develop for. The programing model is very difficult to get good performance out of.
      The reason that you can port from P3 to the 360 is that the 360 is easy to program for.
      I do agree that the difficulty in programing will hurt the PS3. Maybe they can fix the Orange Box.
      What is really scary is that the Orange Box runs just fine on most medium powered PCs. You don't need a top of the line Box to run it well.
      I just don't see companies wanting to spend the resources to make a game work well on the PS3 first and then port to the 360. Well out side of Sony and the Japanese game houses. At least in Japan the PS3 has more market share than the 360.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Depressing by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1

      The PS3 isn't hard to develop for if you have any kind of clue about programming. Infinity Ward is already showing that. The install base is increasing fast so developers are going to be interested in keeping sales going. It's this ongoing meme that the PS3 is so hard to develop for that hurts it. However, Sony released a huge tookpack back in January targeting developers with issues on the PS3. If the development house doesn't use it, it's their own fault when the code doesn't run well.

    11. Re:Depressing by Erwos · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, because Sony releasing some more tools is really going to fix the fundamental problems with the PS3. You are _not_ going to be able to cover up the Cell's weird asymmetrical multi-processing paradigm or the PS3's lack of system RAM with some new libraries. Those are real hardware constraints, not quirks of some system library.

      I suspect that Infinity Ward pumped a _ton_ of dev time into the PS3 version, and they're going to find out that the effort wasn't worth the sales. I'll be curious to see what becomes of COD5, believe me.

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    12. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Makes sense to outsource that work (especially if you don't believe the ps3 is going to be important).


      Okay ... I agree that it makes sense to outsource the work, but that last bit is just over the top.

      Valve hasn't done ANY non-Windows work (and I include the 360 as a Windows platform do to the similarity on the APIs). I don't see HL2 running on the Wii, and it certainly has sold more units than the 360 or PS3.

      Yes, considering that their primary market is (and probably will remain) PCs, it makes sense for them to do the 360 dev in-house (again, assuming the APIs are pretty close). On the other hand, since Sony has consistently said that developing for the PS3 requires the right mindset, and since EA claimed to have done it before (for various values of "done"), on paper it made sense for Valve to hand off development for the only other platform this generation that would be capable of supporting HL2.

      Its not Valve's fault for EA screwing up royally.
      Its not Sony's fault for EA screwing up royally.
      Its EA's.

    13. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Infinity Ward managed to put out a rock solid multi-platform FPS- COD4. If they can make it look and play so great on the PS3, why can't Valve?

      Because EA (and not Valve) is responsible for the PS3-port.

      Sorry to get in the way of your EA bashing, but FIFA 08 PS3 runs at 60fps, so that can't be it. Maybe the game wasn't written with porting in mind.

    14. Re:Depressing by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Game developers have X amount of resources. I suspect that the Wii is the number one target for a lot of them. A lot of game houses bet that Wii wouldn't be a hit and now they are in are scramble mode.
      You statement about the PS3 not being hard to write code for just doesn't hold much water. The Orange Box is a big deal and has a lot of resources backing it. It seems that it sucks on the PS3. The fact that Infinity Ward has managed to write a good quality game for the PS3 doesn't prove that it isn't hard to write code for. It as best shows that it isn't impossible.
      The PS3 is short of system ram and the cell has a strange asymmetrical architecture. I have written a lot of multi-threaded code. In fact I actually like writing multi-threaded code. However asymmetrical multi-threaded code is a lot harder to write than your typical multi-threaded code.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:Depressing by JeremyBanks · · Score: 1

      Is there a link you could give me about that? (Not doubting it, just like to have a source.)

    16. Re:Depressing by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      EA has a crapload of dev studios, FIFA was made by a different one.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:Depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. My memory of working on a cross platform next-gen title is of having to rework textures and LOD distances to keep everything within the PS3's graphical capabilities.

      In truth, we did our jobs too well. People noticed no difference between the two titles (for x360, and PS3), but when you spent months staring at both games, the PS3 version looked gutted in terms of visual quality. If gamers knew what developers were doing to make the PS3 versions run "as good as" the x360 versions, it would end the flame wars over night. Of course, pissing off Sony to that degree would be stupid.

      I'm not saying the PS3 is crap. It's a very powerful gaming console, and can deliver an excellent next-gen gaming experience. It's just not as powerful as the X360 in many ways, and for people on the inside, it shows.

    18. Re:Depressing by Cy+Sperling · · Score: 1

      But isn't Valve ultimately responsible for handing development over to EA to begin with? In this case "can't" extends to outsourcing.

    19. Re:Depressing by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Actually while Assassin's Creed was originally marketed to Sony in an effort to make it an exclusive--all evidence points to the actual initial development of the game being on the 360.

      All of the original tech demos and gameplay demonstrations were on 360 Dev kits.

  8. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, what platformers are there even close to Super Mario Galaxy for Linux?

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
  9. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by heinousjay · · Score: 0

    I do it just to piss you off.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  10. Precisely by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some commenters on the blogs I've read are quick to write this off as Gabe Newell hating on the PS3. I really don't think that's it. It's just that EA couldn't code for a non-Microsoft platform if it's life depended on it. Everything they put out for the PSP had bugs (two Maddens, NCAA Football, Sims 2), and now bugs on HL for the PS3. I've decided that EA couldn't code themselves out of a black box.

    Fault lays about 90% on EA and about 10% on Valve for trusting EA's coders. If this actually is the case, then it definitely will tarnish Valve's reputation which has been pretty good (barring initial Steam issues) to this point.

    1. Re:Precisely by happyemoticon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I were to bet, Valve probably made a pragmatic decision because they had nobody in-house who knew enough about the PS3 to do the port. Their roots are in PC gaming, and from what I understand, they have a very dedicated culture. The chances that one of their star developers would learn to write for the PS3 just for fun are slim. Then, EA says, "Oh, sure, we've got people who can do the port!" and of course, because they're a bonehead marketing company with little respect for programmers, this turns out to be an exaggeration or an outright mistake.

    2. Re:Precisely by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've decided that EA couldn't code themselves out of a black box.

      Well it certainly seems they can't code themselves out of an Orange Box...
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Precisely by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Their roots are well entrenched in Microsoft technologies and a port to OpenGL was either untenable for their staff or more likely undesirable for the MS loving Bellevue development shop. They make good games, but their directx / windows lockin means that I won't be playing their games when I finally bury my last windows installation. A true shame.

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:Precisely by Rayonic · · Score: 1, Troll

      Fault lays about 90% on EA and about 10% on Valve for trusting EA's coders. If this actually is the case, then it definitely will tarnish Valve's reputation which has been pretty good (barring initial Steam issues) to this point.

      Some fault lies with Sony. There's always going to be times when a publisher wants to port some game to a new system. If building an engine from the ground up on the PS3 is the only way to get good performance out of it, then something is seriously wrong. Either the tools are crap, the system design is obtuse, or both.
    5. Re:Precisely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might be a bonehead company, but who writes the most code for the PS3? Who else would Valve go to?

    6. Re:Precisely by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Black? Orange? I thought xbox 360 was white...

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  11. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

    So, what platformers are there even close to Super Mario Galaxy for Linux?
    I'm guessing he was thinking of this one.
  12. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by MikeFM · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nethack. It's the only game you'll ever need.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  13. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go open, build a PC, Install Linux, go to town ...

    Go home, turn on your PC, boot Linux, troll somewhere else....
  14. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you understand what the word "platformer" means.

  15. Oh by chriso11 · · Score: 1

    But I thought this generation of consoles was going to totally pwn1!! all the PC systems. How can the orange box experience be worse on the top of the line console than a medium level PC?

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:Oh by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to break this to you, but it runs fine on Xbox 360 which is, what, 2 years old now? Video game consoles (at least non-crappy ones) have no problem running Half-Life 2 engine games whatsoever.

    2. Re:Oh by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

      Not to one up but... my PC is over four years old and the ~$200 graphics card is two years old. It plays HL2 and TF2 like a champ so it hardly takes a bleeding edge PC.

    3. Re:Oh by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Oh I know, I played HL2 on a AthlonXP 2100+ with a Radeon 9600xt. If you remember, it actually came bundled with that card. (Then Valve delayed it for a full year! By the time I actually was able to play it, the card was almost obsolete.)

  16. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    or 'game', or 'need', or presumably 'fun'.

  17. EA...WTF? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2, Funny

    "How is that port of whatever those dorks from Bellevue sent us going?"

    "Well, we've gotten it to load and we even played through the game once."

    "Yeah, whatever, excellent, I assume you will have finished play testing by noon. After that slap another Medal of Honor together, Bob, VP of Interior Design thinks it should be modeled after Hogan's Heroes and personally, I think any man who drives a Miata; well he just has fine taste. Oh, and before I forget, we fired everyone on your team. We know you can handle it or..... Well you know what I mean."

    1. Re:EA...WTF? by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      "first, we just need to tighten up the graphics a little bit"

      EA's leadership has a vested interest in helping microsoft. I wonder if they'd drop Sony products like they dropped Sega. My 360 gets the multiplatform titles, but this is pretty lame for those with only a PS3.

      I'm pretty sick of supporting EA. Valve should have used Obsidian or someone who has a nice PS3 game out there. This is 100% Valve's fault. EA is what it is, and we've known it for years.

  18. Technically, there is no reason.... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    Technically, there is no reason why Orange Box should have turned out the way it did. Not when games like COD 4, Drake's Fortune and Ratchet and Clank have shown what the PS3 is capable of in the hands of a conscientious development team.

    Financially is another matter. It seems EA just didn't want to allocate the assets necessary to produce a top notch game, and that shows.

    I hope two things result from this fiasco:

    1. That sales of Orange Box for the PS3 absolutely tank. Resulting in...

    2. EA never again produces another PS3 title, leaving a sizable void for a better, smarter studio to fill in the gap. Personally, I wouldn't shed a single tear if EA announced that they will never develop for the PS3 again.

    Something tells me that as word spreads of just how bad Orange Box is the former is likely to happen, while the latter will not and this time next year everyone will have the same conversation about the disconnect between the quality of EA titles and those produced by everyone else.

    1. Re:Technically, there is no reason.... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Personally, I wouldn't shed a single tear if EA announced that they will never develop for the PS3 again.
      Hmm... I would not be upset if EA stops developing any games at all, as long as they spin Maxis, Westwood, (and a few other studios) back out into separate companies. (And those companies become once again as good as they were before EA ate them.)
      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    2. Re:Technically, there is no reason.... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Depending on how the engine was written the necessary steps could very well have been redesigning the whole thing from scratch to fit the PS3 architecture. No idea how much EA was willing to spend but making an engine from scratch would surely cost a LOT.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Technically, there is no reason.... by Osty · · Score: 1

      EA never again produces another PS3 title, leaving a sizable void for a better, smarter studio to fill in the gap. Personally, I wouldn't shed a single tear if EA announced that they will never develop for the PS3 again.

      You may not care, but Sony definitely would. No EA Sports games == console death. Microsoft knows this. That's why they gave up so much in order to get EA to make online-multiplayer games on Xbox Live (Microsoft gave up their in-house sports studios, as well as opened up the Xbox Live service to allow EA to "own" the customer relationship and just let Live act as a gateway into EA's servers for EA games). It seems to have worked out well for Microsoft as well, since this time around EA is using the 360 as their primary platform from which everything else is ported.

      Whether or not you like EA sports titles doesn't matter. Without them, any console will be dead within a year.

    4. Re:Technically, there is no reason.... by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      The company is just a name, Westwood and all the other great companies that have been eaten have bled most of the core employees that made the company what it was. The general trend seems to be that most of the core employees found new companies together. For example a lot of westwood employees went off and founded Petroglyph games

      There really isn't any companies to spit back out again. Shame really.

    5. Re:Technically, there is no reason.... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Personally, I wouldn't shed a single tear if EA announced that they will never develop for the PS3 again.

      Dreamcast, here I come!

    6. Re:Technically, there is no reason.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. Bet you are a heavy linux user that thinks making linux easy to use for the masses is a stupid idea.

      Dude, get your head out of your ass. Personaly, I don't own a PS3 (I have a 360 and a WII) and I don't care if the console stays a failure (and please, you KNOW at the moment sony is seriously disappointed) but if you want it to be more successful, you need EA. That company is huge and it's part of what can help sell the PS3.

      As far as 'technically' is concerned, well you are 'technically' wrong. Sony is more to blame than EA here - they designed a console that is a very hard to develop on (do a little research) M$ gets it on this front - the 360 is very easy to develop on AND then port the development to the PC. That was genius (though I despise them for it as it gets me PC games that are crap due to porting)

      You speak like having the orange box fail or EA leave the PS3 is a good thing. Are you really that stupid? Valve is one of the best game developers around and EA is one of the biggest. Yeah, it'll help PS3 sales if none of their games show up on it.

      Gee, you must be a marketing wizard. The PS3 is already suffering because it STILL doesn't have a stand out game on it, so let's make those chances even less. Wonderful. Great idea.

  19. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Borg453b · · Score: 1

    While I'm having a good time with the orange box (*hug* glados) and the COH: opposing fronts, i keep playing nethack from time to time and ive been playing it since the Amiga. Today, on the train from Hamburg to Århus, my female orc warrior had a sex change, smote things with a +4 enchanted axe and passed through a giant hall filled with monsters around level 13 that i had never seen before. She/he also had to dodge 3 chikatrices, due to missing projectile weapons.. how do you kill those? A blob finally froze her/him to death.. only made for a score around 10.000, but it was fun while it lasted.

    I may stink at it, but the lack of saves (if you oppose cheating) and countless varied situations you can run into keeps you comming back for more. I have yet to get find the amulet.

    --

    - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
  20. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by SSNTails · · Score: 1

    What about this? http://www.srb2.org/ Doesn't include Linux binraries, but does have source that compiles to Linux.

  21. The Cake is a ... by Mercano · · Score: 1

    So, no cake for PS3 owners? I find this whole thing mildly amusing, having been playing TF2 without framerate issues on my two year old PC since the beta came out what, two months ago? (Demoman FTW!)

    --
    #include <signature.h>
    1. Re:The Cake is a ... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      (Demoman FTW!)

      Ka BOOOOOOOOOOM!

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:The Cake is a ... by JPotter227 · · Score: 1

      I've been doing the same on my 5 year old computer. Barton 2500+ and Radeon 9800 Pro still run fine!

    3. Re:The Cake is a ... by stewbee · · Score: 1

      I personally would miss the weighted companion cube the most.

  22. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have yet to get find the amulet. The amulet is a lie.
  23. AC Framerate PS3 vs 360 by bateleur · · Score: 2, Informative

    It a controversial issue, since GameSpot claim the PS3 version performs better whilst IGN say exactly the opposite. (Having played neither version I have no idea who is correct.)

    1. Re:AC Framerate PS3 vs 360 by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      I've read comments from a dev on AC who expressed surprise that anyone would claim the PS3 version was better. His experience was that the 360 version was much better, and was made better in less time, than the PS3 version.

      This, combined with the high starting price of the console, is what's killing the PS3. If developers can't afford to develop for it and make money off of their games, what point is there?

    2. Re:AC Framerate PS3 vs 360 by MMaestro · · Score: 1

      From interviews given by Ubisoft (developers of Assassin's Creed), the devs basically (although never outright) admit that the 360 version is better graphically due to hardware designs. Ubisoft gave a lot of "post-launch" interviews that are up at Gametrailers.com including a comparison video (for those who would rather see it than hear it.)

    3. Re:AC Framerate PS3 vs 360 by LKM · · Score: 1

      I own both a PS3 and a 360. I have only seen the PS3 version. There's definitely noticeable framedrops in the PS3 version, but I don't know how they compare the the 360 version.

  24. Dupe!!11! by aqsalter · · Score: 1

    This is not just a dupe it's a dupe of a preview that is over a month old!!11!
    I know it's probably not going to change much in the next month or so, but I think the team probably heard the complaints the first time...

  25. Burnout Legends DS by LKM · · Score: 1

    I should point out: the DS version of Burnout Legends

    If they really made this piece of crap, then why are they still working for EA? This must be one of the worst games I've ever played; easily worse than E.T. on the 2600.

  26. Xbox 360 color by LKM · · Score: 1

    It's more of a light beige, unfortunately. Looks dirty next to my shiny white Wii :-(

  27. Infinity Ward's best developers by LKM · · Score: 1

    That's what Infinity Ward actually said: They had their top programmers working on the PS3 version.

    The best part, of course, is that the 360 version still looks better than the PS3 version.

    Frankly, I don't quite understand why cross-platform games look worse on the PS3. I own both consoles, and I do think that the new R&C and Uncharted look better than anything I've seen on the 360. Yet all developers who create games also running on the 360 screw up their PS3 versions, even if they have "the best devs" working on the PS3 version. Why is this?

    1. Re:Infinity Ward's best developers by Erwos · · Score: 1

      I find it kind of mind-blowing that you can ask "why is the version with the best devs the worst version?" when I gave the answer in the post you responded to. The PS3 is harder to program for, and has an inflexible memory structure. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the PS3 and 360 aren't equally powerful?

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  28. Re:consoles are for kids ... and companies by malf-uk · · Score: 1

    it's a piece of cake to get actually

    --
    R Tape loading error, 0:1
  29. Nethack is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding. Nethack? You mean the hunger management game? The one disguised as an ASCII dungeon hack? The one that loves to take away your progress randomly? I stopped playing that after realizing the only thing that provides any tension in the game at all is the fact that you may die of hunger at any time. Your character, for some unexplained reason, gets hungry 5 moves after eating an elephant corpse? No. I'd love to explore the dungeon, but I can't because I have to continuously hunt down food. Search for secret doors? Sorry, can't spare the time. Hunger's coming! But don't count on any particular food, it could also kill you or FUBAR your character just by eating it! In a game that deletes your character immediately upon death, that's an unforgivable paradigm. You didn't mention that in Nethack there is no saving and restoring your game. Kind of an important point. Sorry, but most people play games that reward the player with fun, not punish them with frustration.

    1. Re:Nethack is crap by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people play Everquest and World of Warcraft then? Those are about as fun as watching paint dry and are full of punishment, frustration, and repetition. People keep coming back for more and more. Fun is evidently not the point of games.

      Of course, what would I know? I write software for fun.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  30. Mindblowing, huh??? by LKM · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by misinterpreting what I said (mindblowing, huh), but let me try this again by slightly rephrasing my question:

    "Given that the best PS3 games look better than the best 360 games, how come all teams who create cross-platform games make games which look worse on the PS3, even if their best devs are working on the PS3 version?"

    You say that the PS3 is harder to program for and has an inflexible memory structure. That is obviously true, but does not by itself explain why the PS3 versions of games look worse. You then say that the PS3 and 360 are not equally powerful; I guess you mean to imply that the 360 is more powerful than the PS3. If that is true, then how come GT Prologue looks so much better than Forza 2? How come that there's nothing on the 360 which looks anything like R&C? Given the games available today, it's obvious that the PS3 is capable of graphics on par with the 360.

    My suspicion is that publishers simply put less money into PS3 versions of their games, since they will inevitably sell less than 360 versions. I also suspect that the "we have the best devs working on PS3" claims are BS.

    Usual disclaimer required in all console discussions: I own all three current-gen consoles and both current-gen portables. I'm neither a Sony nor a Microsoft fanboy, although I admit to being a bit of a Nintendo fanboy.

    1. Re:Mindblowing, huh??? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Looks better is a real matter of opinon. Maybe the Sony only titles have better artists. Or artists that match your tastes better.
      Of the games I have seen for the PS3 I can honestly say that none of them blew me away.
      If COD looks better on the 360 than the PS3 Then I would have to say that the 360 is easier to program for and they did a better job with it.
      As too which is more powerful. I think the PS3 has more raw power than the 360 from what I have seen of the docks.
      The problem is that really doesn't matter. I have seen lots of really powerful systems over the years that are just too hard to program for. If the power is too hard to use then it will often not be used.
      So that is your answer. The PS3 is much harder to write code for. The 360 is much easer to write code for. Just about every multi platform game will look better on the 360 because for X effort they get better results. That means that the 360 is going to have more games that look good on it the the PS3 simply because it is easier to write games that look good on the 360. Unless things really turn around for the PS3 it will get less and less top games because it offers the worst return on developer investment. There are fewer consoles and harder to write good games for.
      So that is your answer. Multi platform games look worse on the PS3 because it is harder to make them look good than on the 360.
      I am a programmer but I don't own a 360 or a PS3.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  31. Any E, E10+, or T rated examples? by tepples · · Score: 1

    That is because you can build a multi-head system, with each seat getting its own keyboard, mouse, display, and x11 session. But how well does an OpenGL app (not a rich text editor or a web browser) perform on the setup linked in the linuxgazette article? And if all four players' characters are in the same room with a non-first-person view, like in Smash Bros. or Bomberman, all four screens would be showing the same thing anyway, so why spend more on three more video cards and three more monitors?

    You can have 4 people playing Quake Wars on one linux box. Or, if you want, you can have 2 seats playing quake wars, while the other 2 play Unreal Tournament 3. Try that on a console. My imagined use case involves households with children or for family parties with children. Can you think of some examples that have or would have a rating below M if rated by ESRB?
    1. Re:Any E, E10+, or T rated examples? by xhrit · · Score: 1

      >how well does an OpenGL app (not a rich text editor or a web browser) perform on the setup linked in the linuxgazette article?

      An opengl app will work perfectly normal on a multi seat system. (provided you have enough resources to run it multiple times on your system)

      >And if all four players' characters are in the same room with a non-first-person view, like in Smash Bros. or Bomberman, all four screens would be showing the same thing anyway, so why spend more on three more video cards and three more monitors?

      A mid range geforce 7 can run 2 monitors - a quadro can run 4. And (since my above post earlier today) I have been experimenting with Xephyr/Xnest to get true splitscreen; i.e. multiple x sessions split across one screen. Very nice, but I have not been able to figure out how to pipe the controls into each nested session. I have not been trying too hard tho - I am still at w0rk. :)

      >My imagined use case involves households with children or for family parties with children. Can you think of some examples that have or would have a rating below M if rated by ESRB?

      I dono, my pre-teen and all his friends love it when all 6 ov them rock Quake Wars on my LAN. ( ESRB Teen ) Me, not so much. Do they WANT earth to loose? Those kids couldn't assault a sand castle.