Platinum soothes Bayonetta PS3 worries

By Robert Purchese Published 18 September, 2009

Console quirks to blame, says Minami.

PlatinumGames boss Tatsuya Minami has attempted to ease fears that the PS3 version of Bayonetta won't match up.

Writing on PlatinumGames' website, he put eventual differences between PS3 and Xbox 360 down to console "peculiarities", and said demos of both versions will do the talking at the Tokyo Game Show next week.

"With Bayonetta, we created the Xbox 360 version of the game first, and then handed off all the data and other assets to SEGA so they could begin the process of porting Bayonetta to the PS3, giving them advice regarding the porting process along the way and overseeing the progress to ensure that the PS3 version would be the best it could be," wrote Minami.

"The goal was to release the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions to gamers day and date, and even though there have been trials and tribulations along the way, we are incredibly pleased to be able to present two playable versions of the game on the Tokyo Game Show floor."

Concerns arose after PlatinumGames showed the PS3 version for the first time in Japan last month. Eye-witnesses - like 1UP - reported a clear difference between console demos, calling the PS3 game "very blurry" with an unstable framerate.

"As the developers of Bayonetta, we have overseen both versions, and I would like to make one thing clear. The Xbox 360 and PS3, as hardware platforms, both have their own distinct differences and peculiarities, and these characteristics will naturally give birth to differences in the final product," Minami explained.

"However, all involved endeavoured to exploit the specific traits of each console to create an enjoyable experience. We feel the best way to evaluate this is by actually playing the game for yourself and coming to your own conclusions.

"Bringing Bayonetta to users of both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is something we feel to be very important, and I feel passionately that we have fulfilled our responsibility in that regard," he added.

Bayonetta launches on PS3 and 360 in late October across Japan, although the West won't see the action game until early next year. And look good Bayonetta does, as recent media and hands-on impressions will testify.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (60) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • cianchristopher #1 2 years ago

    I think we know how the Face-Off for this'll turn out, don't we guys? Fucking idiot developers...... Game'll be shit anyway so why bother.....

    The number of third-party devs who treat the PS3 with the respect it deserves (equal respect, IMO) is a shame. I count Infinity Ward, Criterion, Rocksteady and not much more.... Anyone else I should be thinking of?

  • ps3owner #2 2 years ago

    PSlol... ? man I shouldn't have had all these beers yesterday. damn it

  • muscleblade #3 2 years ago

    I have no worries. I have a 360.

    This game looks fantastic from the trailers btw.

  • HermitArcader #4 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • ps3owner #5 2 years ago

    all muscle no brain?!

  • berelain #6 2 years ago

    Those hands-on impressions aren't actually hands-on, unless you meant to link to a different article ;)

  • JahB #7 2 years ago

    This game looks fantastic from the trailers btw.

    i'd have to disagree. performance issue on whatever console aside, bayonetta is easily among the worst character designs this gen.

  • Dizzy #8 2 years ago

    "The number of third-party devs who treat the PS3 with the respect it deserves (equal respect, IMO) is a shame"

    Or maybe Sony should treat the devs with some respect instead of saying they "made it hard" on purpose. If you build it (properly) they will come.
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/09 @ 14:07

  • muscleblade #9 2 years ago

    @ps3owner

    Oh - never heard that one before. You must be really intelligent.
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/09 @ 14:10

  • JohnnyWashnGo #10 2 years ago

    Do developers actually care about the PS3?

    Seems from what I hear that devs are keen to get their software working well on Xbox and then see the PS3 port as something else that has to be done but something that is not too important.

    Am I wrong?

  • the_dudefather #11 2 years ago

    Sexy Librarian not so sexy on the ps3 I guess

  • ps3owner #12 2 years ago

    I have an IQ of 65, I believe that's just above a loaf of bread. I reckon that's enough.

  • cianchristopher #13 2 years ago

    @Vertical Stand: Well to be honest I said the game'll be shit cos I'm completely fucking sick of this half-assed (or no-assed) PS3 treatment! AND I'm an Xbox 360 owner to boot! Fancy that!

    Why do I then give a shit, you ask? Cos in this day and age, you're a fucking shit developer if you can't bring your PS3 version up to snuff with your 360 version!

    I like Clover (Okami was great) but enough is enough! It's time to call a spade a spade! These guys are fucking shit and that's that! End of story!

  • HermitArcader #14 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • cianchristopher #15 2 years ago

    @Vertical Stand: Well, I take your point, and my statement wasn't meant like that! If it turns out to be a masterpiece on the Xbox 360 (cos let's face it, it won't be a masterpiece on the PS3 for sure) I'll adit that much! But i'm not expecting it to (and yes, I don't think all games need to be "masterpieces" to be worthy).....

    But, whatever console you own, I think we can all agree that this sounds more like 2007 standards of porting, not 2009! And that is not just unacceptable! It's an outrage!

    These guys are Japanese too! Don't they even give a shit about the PS3? And they better not tell me it can't be done (other, better, devs than them have achieved cross-platform parity in their releases)!

  • mingster #16 2 years ago

    Isn't this the game you can play one handed with one button?

  • HermitArcader #17 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Darren #18 2 years ago

    So these "distinct" differences between the two consoles amount to the PS3 version looking blurry and running with an uneven framerate? The article doesn't actually say that this won't be the case for the final version, does it? I don't see why such differences should exist in the first place really, after all Bayonetta is a very similar game to Devil May Cry 4 from what I've seen of it and both versions of that game were remarkably similar.

  • GundamJehutyKai #19 2 years ago

    It's all nice and well for them to blame console "quirks" for the problems, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the article doesn't actually say if they've resolved the issues seen with the last PS3 demo and have it up to a stage where it can al least be fairly compared to the 360 version.
    Given that it's supposed to be released next month, I really hope so...

  • MaliceMajorE15 #20 2 years ago

    it obviously makes me more worried that the developer handed it over to another team, no good can come of that. look at quake wars. despite what they say as usual-
    the 360 version WILL be the optimal version,
    there will be NO benefit to getting the ps3 version aside from the controller,
    and possibly there will be a mandatory install which will as usual bring no benefits to the table.

    of course none of this means that it wont be a very good game on the ps3 and it will probably greatly outsell the 360 version in its native Japan. but if it irritates you greatly that you are not playing the game the with the same visual fidelity as the devs intended for it to have then you will have to get the 360 version as for me i know from dmc4 that for these style of games the 360 controller is not where its at and it could slightly impair my playing performance so i will get the ps3 version with its lamentable graphical weakness by comparison

  • drumbaby #21 2 years ago

    Sounds like they're saying that whatever faults there are with the PS3 version are there to stay...DMC 4 was excellent on PS3. Why not this?

    /not buying

  • JahB #22 2 years ago

    Cos in this day and age, you're a fucking shit developer if you can't bring your PS3 version up to snuff with your 360 version!

    you clearly know fuck all about game development.

  • JahB #23 2 years ago

    @Vertical Stand

    if she winks like sarah, i might change my mind

  • SeesThroughAll #24 2 years ago

    It has to be the hardware fault! It just sucks!
    But really people! Stop making excuses! There is no such thing as uninterested developers! They ALL put AS MUCH LOVE AND EFFORT AS POSSIBLE in their work to get the most out of the CrapStation!

    Your experience playing games like DMC4 or Batman was an illusion, forget about it!

    Just accept the reality: the PS3 is shite! :p

  • cianchristopher #25 2 years ago

    @JahB: I'll tell you what I *do* know, I know that other teams have pulled it off, but these guys can't. They're second-rate! Not up to scratch! Not quite good enough! The B team! etc. etc. etc.

  • Kenshin001 #26 2 years ago

    PS3 version will be shit then. One consolation I guess is that PS3 owners can get NGS2 or later God of War 3 for their fix instead. Ironic if it gets decimated by NGS2 in Japan.

  • TopKatt #27 2 years ago

    I hope donnie's okay.

  • VandelayIndustries #28 2 years ago

    So in essence, they've done a 'Valve'!


    Genius.

  • Collymilad #29 2 years ago

    It never fails to astound me how people apologise for the PS3.

    It's difficult to develop for, this has come straight from the horses mouth (Sony)

    It's nothing to do with "lazy" or "shit" devs, Valve's stance is testament to that. Sony made the PS3 needlesly complex to develop for, accept it and get over it.

    @cianchristopher

    The devs you mentioned were probably heavily helped by Sony (above the normal level) - this shouldn't be a requirement to have equal performance across platforms.
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/09 @ 16:10

  • Bazfrag #30 2 years ago

    If Sony had got its act together sooner this wouldn't happen so often. Cost and time didn't stop everyone and their mum from making ps2 lead platform last gen.

    @Topkatt - give him an hour then we better call the police.

    Edit: someone stole my ' key :)
    Edited by 3 at 18/09/09 @ 16:42

  • Machiavellian #31 2 years ago

    @JahB: I'll tell you what I *do* know, I know that other teams have pulled it off, but these guys can't. They're second-rate! Not up to scratch! Not quite good enough! The B team! etc. etc. etc.

    Or have you even considered that Clover is a small developer with limited resources where concentration on one Platform is all they can do at this point. If you do not have a huge team to devote to the PS3 or have 3 years to just get your engine up to snuff on the PS3 sometimes you have to make concessions. Have you considered that they may have their own custom engine and did not have the time or resources to spend developing for the PS3 since we all know that it does take a lot of time and resources to get a proper running PS3 engine working. Have you forgotten the trouble other developers have had with the PS3 in getting it up to speed. Even for big time developers, they have needed to devote entire teams to get the PS3 code in proper shape. For smaller developers you have do what you can and sometimes its best to have someone else handle the port if they have experience PS3 coders.

    Last but not least, it always seem easy to blame the Developers but maybe you should think about putting some if not the majority of that blame on Sony. Piss poor support, crappy if not noexistant tools and library's to use and just plain disrespect for developers when giving them the tools they need to harness the power from their hardware which would reduce development time and give smaller developers a chance to put out a PS3 game without having to go through a bunch of crap.

  • Chazmeister #32 2 years ago

    What always gets me about the whole PS3 being difficult to develop for debacle, is that Sony had the same issues with the PSone and 2. You would have thought that Sony would have learnt from past experiences by the time of their third console, and produced a more dev friendly machine. In that sense MS have had the right idea from the get go, ie just create a PC in a box and make it simple as possible, and of course they have the benifit of all their software experience.

    It always reads to me like Sony's primary concerns were to make a technically powerfull console and blu-ray machine first and foremost, with scant consideration given to the interpolation of it's software. You only have to look at Sony's problematic piece meal intergration of the PSN to see evidence of that.

    I suppose Sony's problems stem from it's legacy of strictly being an electronics manufacturer, without the benifit of any software development experience to back it up. Maybe they'll get things right for PS4, and hopefully they'll do the right thing and farm out software development to a dedicated third party that knows what it's doing.

  • Bazfrag #33 2 years ago

    "have you even considered that Clover is a small developer with limited resources where concentration on one Platform is all they can do at this point."

    +1. You saved me some typing.

  • Machiavellian #34 2 years ago

    I do not remember the PS1 being all that difficult but the PS2 definitely. The difference would be that that the PS2 was first to market by a whole year or better. It also had the much better install base which continued to grow over the competition each year so it was the lead system and any ports after the PS2 game were afterthoughs.

    Today, the PS3 install base is smaller than the competition. The 360 came out a year ahead, is the lead system for the majority 3rd party developers. Its ease of use and support from MS is top notch.

    So what you can take from this is that if you are not the first console out of the gate and you have a very complex development for the hardware, you best make it easy for developers to code for your platform. Coming out a year later than your competition with the most complex hardware to get the same performance as your competitor is not a smart move.

    Piss poor support and resources is also not the best way to make developers happy.

  • EvilBob_leeds #35 2 years ago

    "Valve's stance is testament to that"

    I agree that the PS3 is difficult to code for, and that Sony's development tools have been put to shame by MSs. But, in fairness, Valves stance is in no small part testament to a fat tosser called Gabe Newell's long standing ties with MS;

    http://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Newell

    Surprising that an ex-Microsoft employee should be by far the most vocal decryer of the development process on the PS3 in the game development community. No, hold on, not surprising. Really fucking predictable.
    Edited by 5 at 18/09/09 @ 19:04

  • shotgun44 #36 2 years ago

    This game looks fairly generic. Yea, I said it.

  • DjFlex52 #37 2 years ago

    'This game looks fairly generic. Yea, I said it. '

    yea, generic it is....a woman clothed with her hair and also shoots angels with guns attached to her feet has been done over & over again.
    Develpoers are such copycats

    /sarcasm ends

  • Lord_Gremlin #38 2 years ago

    Well, I don't buy PS3 game if it's not the superior version. So they'll most likely won't get my money. Jesus, an inferior version on PS3 in 2009, when others make games exactly same (Batman) on both consoles or even better on PS3 (Prototype, Burnout)? Shame on them. Lazybones.

  • davisorle #39 2 years ago

    Third parties wont be wasting their resources, literally "trying" to create the same title on te PS3 and "trying" to make it perform as good.Since its been admitted from developers that they dont get help as much from Sony as they do from MS ( was in an article again on EG yesterday or the day before ) specially whne it comes to even a timed exclusive and thn the simple fact of how much easier and cheaperr it is itsellf to develop for the 360, would you pay extra staff or spend more resources and money without income from your final product trying to work extra an the PS3?

    Me as a consumer and gamer I can see your point 100% but you can NOT blame the developers cauethey simply dont force you to buy their product. If you dont like the fact they look worst and they always will ( crossplatform ) in this gen since its been going that way for about 3-4 years, buy the damn titles for the 360 or dont pay for them. Or simply go buy them pretending you bought a console that was worth its money if you bought it before the slim/pricedrop, cause not only wasnt worth but also had less quality tittles and had and always will have worstcrossplatform. Wanna be mad at the developers? For all they care you dont buy their games till youget bored of not playing and buy it on the console you prefer. One way or the other you will end up paying for it if you like it.

    To me this game still looks weird. Its the kind of game that takes a lot to get me interested. If its fun and needs some skill and not too gneric I miht as well buy it.

  • SeesThroughAll #40 2 years ago

    This was a bad call on SEGA's part, as surely with more development time, the PS3 version could have come closer to the 360 one. I really don't think it would be smart to postpone the release further, but maybe if the engine development had been outsourced simultaneously alongside the development of the 360 version, there might have been a chance that the PS3 couterpart would benefit from better quality.

    Now, one of the versions is probably going to sell poorly as a result. Then again, maybe not.
    Edited by 1 at 18/09/09 @ 21:35

  • penhalion #41 2 years ago

    This whole thing sounds more like Platinum saying "Sega did the PS3 version we just gave then some art stuff honest". This will not end well!

  • Machiavellian #42 2 years ago

    Personally I still blame Sony more than I can blame any developer. It's Sony Attitude towards developers is what causes problems like this instead of developers commitment to their product. How many years does it take for Sony to understand the developers are their friend and they should give them all the support then can to produce the best product on their system. When you really think about it, Sony was shone up last Gen with the PS2 but the fact that everyone pretty much had to put out a PS2 product if they wanted any decent money was one of the keys to the PS2 success.

    This Gen you see that Sony just put together hardware and throw it out their for the developers to figure out how to code for it. When big time engine developers like Epic says "WTF" they send in a team of IBM engineers to help them get their code up to snuff and thus we have a game like Batman which have few faults between the PS3 and 360.

    The question to ask is how many developers get this type of support. If you are a small developer and you started your project 2 years ago, how much support did Sony provide. The situation is gamers do not know anything besides the little piece of information they read from sites like EG but they are quick to judge and even when they are found wrong they look for something else so they can feel justified in supporting their favorite platform.

    Personally I wish people would stop trying to blame the developers all the time and understand there are a lot of things that go into the development of a game and it's not always the most obvious choice that is at fault when something goes wrong.

  • captainrentboy #43 2 years ago

    I played this for half an hour or so earlier this week and it was pretty bloody awesome. It basically plays like DMC, but there's a lot more explosions, destruction, naked chicks and basic shit goin' down than any of the DMC games. The graphics were freakin' lovely, the part I played had a gigantic porcelain faced boss smashing up a huge bridge, that I was previously fighting standard enemies on, and then swinging said bridge around like it was a twig, all whilst I was tring to kick it's ass.
    The next level had you fighting on the walls and ceiling of a huge Chapel, all in all it was quite mental. :)

  • busboy33 #44 2 years ago

    @evilBob:

    So . . . you agree with Gabe Newell's criticisms ("I agree that the PS3 is difficult to code for, and that Sony's development tools have been put to shame by MSs";). You agree that the PS3 has, of the 3 consoles, the smallest installed base (meaning statistically there's a greater chance of fewer sales, and therefore smaller profits). You acknowledge that he his factually accurate . . . then you imply that as an ex-Microsoft employee it is "predictable" that he would make those statements, implying that he is biased toward MS and therefore untrustworthy and should be discredited.

    You know what else is fucking predictable? An ex-Microsoft employee saying "2 plus 2 equals 4". Also, "the sun is hot" and "water is wet". Fucking predictable biased MS people, making accurate statements you agree with.

    Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

  • SeesThroughAll #45 2 years ago

    Gabe Newell's criticisms ("I agree that the PS3 is difficult to code for, and that Sony's development tools have been put to shame by MSs";)

    That was not Gabe Newell's criticism. He dismissed the hardware design altogether as useless, and used a far more arrogant tone.

    If anything, all he accomplished was to feed the image of the "lazy developer".

  • EvilBob_leeds #46 2 years ago

    ^^ What he said.

    To quote the wikipedia article on the subject

    Newell was once quoted as claiming that developing processes for the console in general was "a waste of everybody's time" and "a disaster on many levels ... I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a do over. Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it'."

    A bit overboard, no? Other developers could have come out in support of what he was saying. None did. Do I agree that the PS3 is difficult to code for? Yup. Do I agree with this whingy diatribe? Nooooooo!

    So ultimately you didn't bother to have a look into what he said before forming an opinion on it. Pretty fucking predictable :-P
    Edited by 2 at 18/09/09 @ 23:55

  • Retroid #47 2 years ago

    Yeah, his loyalty chip is obviously working perfectly...!

    /Rolls eyes

    Also, his 'arrogant' tone changes from interview to interview, article to article. Almost as if he was just getting sick and tired of answering the same question - "Why don't you support the PS3?" - over and over again.

    He's obviously a massive MS fanboy seeing how Half Life saw console release on Dreamcast (it was finished, I've played it) and PS2, not Xbox.

    Good god, people can't hold personal opinions on their own job without being fanboys of some description according to some people.

  • busboy33 #48 2 years ago

    @EvilBob:

    So you object to the tone?

    Why did he say it was a waste of time? Because its a pain in the ass to program for, and in terms of dollars spent developing for the system versus dollars to be made selling for the system, it was a waste of time. Sony should just call a do over . . . and make a system that was easier to code for. Did you really think he wanted them to start over and make the exact same system?

    Do you honestly think his comments didn't boil down to the system was prohibitively difficult to code for, and that part of that difficulty stems from a lack of Sony developer support? You thought he was saying "The system is Aces, but Sony is Teh Devil!!"? Really?

    Well, let's clear this up. After all, Wikipedia quotes him saying bad things and being rude. Huh . . . what's this little blue number next to the quote? Oh, it's a reference to the actual full quote!! How nifty. Wonder what he said there? Why don't we take a look?

    "'I think [PS3 is] a waste of everybody's time," he said. "Investing in the Cell, investing in the SPE gives you no long-term benefits.'
    . . .
    'There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think they're going to make money off their box. I don't think it's a good solution,' he continued."

    So he doesn't like it because the architecture is difficult, and since it's such a unique hardware design spending years becoming proficient in PS3 coding will be worth crap on any other system -- a losing investment of time, money and effort. I womder why it takes so long to get proficient coding for it? Maybe . . . just a guess here . . . because thew Sony developer support is lacking?

    Now I'm confused. That's what you said, isn't it? That's what I pointed out above, didn't I?

    Oh, now I see. Gabe was rude about it. He could have said it in a way that didn't cast aspersions on the honor of Sony. Well now I understand. Your posts clearly demonstrate how import being polite and not getting insulting is. Now the difference is clear.

    I just thought of something else that's fucking predictable: Sony fanboys acting like idiots. Now THAT'S fucking predictable.

  • jaguarwong #49 2 years ago

    I'm just intrigued that an entirely Japanese developer like Platinum has the 360 as it's lead platform.

  • Dizzy #50 2 years ago

    >If anything, all he accomplished was to feed the image of the "lazy developer".

    Quite the opposite. He send a clear message to console makers that the software people make your games and that they should have a well designed console. If not... no support. If more devs would have the balls to say this, we would have more and better games.

  • SeesThroughAll #51 2 years ago

    Well, the console maker in question invested a lot of money and paid a lot of hard-working engineers (I'm not referring to Krazy Ken at all, but to the engineers that did all the work) to design "badly" the console they later on released.
    Calling other people's hard work a piece of junk is not courage.

    Carmack sent clear messages to both Sony and Microsoft as well (he criticized the Cell as academically interesting, and Microsoft for not having adopted HD DVD as standard storage), without sounding nearly as extreme. The difference lies in the arrogance.

  • des #52 2 years ago

    But,but,but teh Cell...

    How long is PS3 going to be difficult to develop for?...the way things are going it will be forever excuse for developers and fanboys.
    Although i understand why devs are saying this,it is not politically correct to say PS3 sucks.

  • Lemming81 #53 2 years ago


    Dizzy and others,

    you seem to be under the impression that 'Sony made it hard to code for on purpose'. They didn't. They created a machine they thought would get the best out of games, for us, the consumers, and it does...if the developers can be bothered to jump through the hoops.

    The ps3 isn't particuarly mind-bending to code for, it's just the Xbox uses already old-hat and familiar methods. It's just the path of least resistance.

    Does that autmatically make it the best way forward? No, definetly not.

  • Solvalou #54 2 years ago

    I don't think the title of this article is correct at all. There's nothing soothing in these statements. Basically they have confirmed that PS3 Bayonetta: 1) will be inferior 2) will not "really" be a Platinum Games product 3) that PS3 owners should already feel lucky that they even decided for a port nonetheless.

    Basically playing Sega's Bayonetta will be like playing Wii Okami, or worse, Wii Dead Rising. An inferior port outsourced to a less talented Sega team.
    No thanks.

  • EvilBob_leeds #55 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    Eh? Valve converted nothing themselves, Sierra got gearbox in to develop the PS2 and Dreamcast versions, prior to the Xboxes release. Frankly I doubt he got all that much say in what platforms it was released for. After all, it's not like Gabe was mad keen on the PS3 version getting released this time around.

    And obviously it's beneath Microsoft to use FUD to discredit a competitors platform, since they've never used that tactic in the past /rolls eyes

    @busboy

    "Because its a pain in the ass to program for, and in terms of dollars spent developing for the system versus dollars to be made selling for the system, it was a waste of time."

    Yeah, clearly it's a waste of time, it's not as if other games companies manage to turn profits by developing for the PS3, and hence usually don't bother. Oh no, wait, they all fucking do. It's only a waste of time if you don't make a profit. Last time I checked Valve where a business, not a charity.

    "So he doesn't like it because the architecture is difficult, and since it's such a unique hardware design spending years becoming proficient in PS3 coding will be worth crap on any other system -- a losing investment of time, money and effort"

    And why would it be a losing investment? It's a losing investment if you produce a half assed pile of shit like the orange box on the PS3, otherwise I think 24 million console owners represents a market large enough to be worth investing "time money and effort" in. Street Fighter 4 shifted more copies on the PS3. So did Resident Evil. So has Arkham asylum.

    And whether the time you spend getting to grips with the hardware will eventually go down the drain at the end of this generation rather depends on what direction console architecture takes next generation, and whether you think having to program with a tricky architecture is not going to be a learning experience in and of itself.

    I'd probably take his criticisms more seriously if they came from someone like Hideo Kojima or someone else with a wealth of experience coding for different architectures. All this fat ponce has first hand experience of coding for is x86, x64 and the 360 - ie platforms with nice friendly established development tools. On this, one of his first forays out of his comfort zone, he threw his toys out of the pram.

    I said I agreed that the PS3 is harder to code for. That's it. That all programming for the PS3 was going to get you was "a hatred of the architecture they've created"? You think that's reasoned opinion and not blathering hyperbole? How about the PS3 being "a total disaster on so many levels?"? Yeah no, you're right all he was trying to get across there was that the developer support was lacking.

    Probably the most damning of all his fatuous comments is "I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted". Really. They delivered what I wanted, and many others. I think his problem is that they didn't deliver what Gabe Newell wanted.

    Now read that last bit again. It's linked from the wikipedia page, and you seem to have got the hang of that. "I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted". Customers. Not just developers. So his problem with the PS3 clearly wasn't just that it was difficult to code for, he took time out to make it clear that he thought it was an all round faliure.

    Frankly him being rude is neither here nor there. He was either being brainless and lazy, and unable to see past himself, or a shill. I'm not keen on either.

    And enough with the predictable bit, it's getting old.
    Edited by 7 at 20/09/09 @ 23:32

  • Demiath #56 2 years ago

    *Sigh*...the PS3 has been around for three years now; how hard can it be to create an acceptable port of any game on Sony's console? Come on developers, it's not rocket science!

  • LilithsCurves #57 2 years ago

    I hope the guys at Sega are motivated to give it a great appearance on the PS3. Like getting money out of PS3 sales. Right now, making Cross Platform games look good, even better on the PS3 is not high up on Sony's list. Hopefully they will raise that, when getting a substantial user base and taking sales away from MS is profitable for them. Believing they will do it just out of idealism?, well sadly no.

  • busboy33 #58 2 years ago

    "'I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted'. Customers. Not just developers. So his problem with the PS3 clearly wasn't just that it was difficult to code for, he took time out to make it clear that he thought it was an all round faliure."

    What do customers want when they buy a video game system? They want to play games. Having a system that makes creating games prohibitive for developers means fewer games. Customers get less of what they want -- games.

    He's certainly not the first person that has made this argument. Whether you agree with the idea that the PS3 was/is "over-engineered" is not the question here. Is Gabe Newell the only person that has argued against the "all that and the kitchen sink" design style of the PS3? No.

    But all of this gets off your point. You insinuated that he made his claims because he's an ex-Microsoft person. That his criticisms aren't just rude, but motivated by partisan loyalty. And that is just stupid. "Ex"-employee means that he's not getting a paycheck from MS anymore. What would he gain screwing his own company by losing money? Only fanboys have that kind of corporate loyalty. If Gabe thought that PS3 development was financially worth it for the company, he'd do it. It's a business -- the goal is to make money. Shorting the PS3 out of partisan spite doesn't get him a nickel.

    The fanboys were offended when Square-Enix announced FF13 on the 360. How dare they! They dare because they see it as a way to get paid. If they thought that they would make more money staying Sony-exclusive, they would in a heartbeat. If they thought they'd make more money as a 360 exclusive, they would in a heartbeat.

    This entire thread is about Platnum not doing the PS3 Bayonetta conversion themselves. Are they not doing it because they have loyalty to MS? Or are they not doing it brecause it's not financially worth it to them? They see it as cheaper (and therefore more likely to result in an eventual profit) to contract the work out. Spending the time, man-hours, effort, resources, and skills to make it themselves is apparently so prohibitively expensive that farming their own game out makes more sense to them. Hmmm, what other developer whose name is related to plumbing came to an identical conclusion? But Valve's decision must be biased, right? I wonder what Platnum's excuse is?

    You disagree with Gabe and think that its worth it for him and the company to develop for the PS3. That's a business decision that different companies can come to different conclusions about. It's (essentially) his company. Some companies (Sega) think that there's profit to be made in "hardcore" titles for the Wii. Other companies think that the market isn't there, despite the installed base. Are they not making Wii games to spite Nintendo? Are they refusing to make anything more complicated than party games because they're loyal to past employers? Or are they doing it because they don't think the payoff will equal the cost?

    Disagree with Gabe's opinion, but trying to smear him as a Microsoft flack is childish. He doesn't have an axe to grind. You, apparently, do.
    Edited by 1 at 21/09/09 @ 08:13

  • EvilBob_leeds #59 2 years ago

    This arguments going round and round in circles. I did write a big long rebuttal, but I'm getting kind of sick of this, so I'll keep it relatively brief. The fact of the matter is neither of us know for definate what his motivations where, or are likely to ever find out. However...

    Disagree with Gabe's opinion, but trying to smear him as a Microsoft flack is childish.

    You keep on using that adjective. Why is it necessarily childish? Is it outside of the realms of possibility that he is a MS flack? Have MS not extensively used and not continued to use third partys to discredit competitors platforms? Ever heard of SCO? No, no you're right, clearly it's insane to think that a Microsoft Millionaire who described themself the "producer" of windows, and has since produced a line of MS exclusive titles would hold any kind of loyalty towards MS. Totally insane.

    Not that I'm saying it's just MS that engages in this kind of shit. But it does go on.

    We have someone who fits the MO of a flack (ex employee, owns a company now concerned solely with making games for his ex employers platforms) and a company with a loooong track record of using fud and flacks to slag off competitors platforms. And someone who makes a business decision that, on the face of it, was so dim and short sighted as to begger belief. Who failed to do what many other developers of comparable or smaller size have managed to do. Who was too incompetent to do what Bethesda, for example, managed with such ease at around the same time, with much the same tools. But somehow you're sure he's not a flack.
    Edited by 14 at 21/09/09 @ 20:13

  • Dr.Frappers #60 2 years ago

    Jeez....some of you guys really need to get out and get laid.