Because power wise PC's are better so going from PC --> 2 consoles is better because they are scaling the better quality version of the PC down, as opposed to just porting from the 360 where everyone would get less than their potential, aside from the 360.

Ideally I would think it would be PC-->PS3-->360 or for console exclusives PS3-->360, but I'm not how different the languages are or anything, I assume there is a reason most companies don't do this.

They're developing on the hardware wise strongest plattform and scale it down from there. That's actually what makes more sense compared to developing on the slower plattforms and then scaling it upwards (if at all).

This is my problem... the scaling. Scaling makes it worse than it could be for whatever platform it ends up being scaled in either direction for, doesn't it?

Now this may be a bit of a silly question but..

How can you learn from the development process of a game that isn't even out yet?

For all we know, battlefield 3 might flop dramatically (windows xp not supported, xbox360/ps3 getting a 'dumbed down' version). In my opinion dice is taking a risk, and while I applaud that they do and hope they succeed, that doesn't automatically mean that giving the pc version priority is the way of the future.

In the end it's all about the sales.

That is simply too costly to bother with in today's industry. It happened fairly often during the 16-bit days though.

Of course the console versions are going to be "dumbed down." There's no way for them to have the same graphics as the PC version.

No. This is an over-simplification, but think about it this way: you're taking a photo with a digital camera. You know you want to use the photo as a forum avatar, so you could take the picture at the lowest resolution the camera is capable of. Then again, you could take the picture at a higher resolution in case you want a "bigger" version of it later for something else. Lower resolution means less data. It's easier to take a lot of data and pare it down to a smaller set of data...all of the data is there and now you just need to make a smaller, more usage-specific, optimized version of it based on the larger chunk of data. However, it's very difficult to make a smaller set of data bigger without creating something more artificial-looking, blurry, obviously computer-generated, etc. You don't have the resolution...the detail doesn't exist. You have to "make it up," improvise, fill in the blanks. Down scaling things results in less dilution of the data than up-scaling things.

I know that 's a bit of a stretch from an anology perspective, but it fits. You do the same thing when designing software. You over-design so you can see all of the possibilities and the directions you might want to go, or you might someday want to go. Then, you scale back, you optimize, you pare the project down to what you actually need for the current design iteration. This prevents you from making mistakes that "paint your design into a corner," so to speak.

The interpretation that using the PC as the lead platform will hurt the quality of the console versions is ridiculous. The lead platform should ALWAYS be the most technically capable one. To a developer this should be common sense.


This...sooooo this. The only real pitfall with this strategy is running out of time to finish optimizations for the 360 and PS3 and ending up with ports that don't run well enough. If they do it right that should not happen.

Well yeah, what else do you want, only plattform exclusives? Every game always has one plattform where the brunt of the work is being done on. It would be utterly cost ineffective to develop it from the ground up for each plattform, games are just way too expensive and complex for that by now.


You're right with that, it is risky, but there's a decent strategy behind it:
Battlefield is going straight up against CoD which has a huge fanbase. But they are somewhat sidestepping that problem by paying attention to an audience that CoD isn't as focused on, so it could very well pay off. They're not just attacking CoDs hometurf but also going at their blindside.

Then why is the 360 the lead platform more often than both the PC and the PS3 despite it being the least technically capable of the three (by far, in comparison to the PC)? I know how scaling down works in regards to what you said and to be honest, if I'm getting a port either way, I'd rather get a PC port and have the PC version look better simply because, as a console player, the PC version will one day be the version any and all of us can play on some non-gaming computer we could all eventually buy for relatively cheap and I do support the principle of pushing individual hardware as much as possible. If Morrowind truly demanded ridiculously high specs back in its day, I don't notice it now as this normal laptop easily maximizes all its settings, for example, and getting 360 ports as a PS3 player is frustrating enough, sometimes, so I can't even imagine what a PC gamer with a modern gaming rig must feel, but I can somewhat sympathize with it.



That lack of optimization... see, that's why I hate ports.

Well that's the problem isn't it? Nobody complains when it's developed on the weaker platform because all versions look almost the same, but when they develop it for PC and optimize it for consoles then all of a sudden people get all upset.

The only reason I can think of is marketing. The games are being developed on a PC using a 360 development kit...they're not being developed on an actual Xbox 360. The only technical reason I can think of to declare the 360 as the "lead platform" is if you're going to spend the most time optimizing and polishing the title for that platform. The Xbox 360's architecture is more similar to a PC architecture than the PS3's is, and I think that's the reason that the PS3 gets screwed over with some multi-platform titles. Sony decided to use a very unorthodox architecture for their hardware, making it a more expensive target for a port.

Well, i have both a (more or less) modern PC and a PS3. Imagine how i feel :teehee:

Nah, i mostly buy exclusives for PS3 and everything else for PC. PC gets higher resolutions and more accurate controls. And mods in some cases. Apart from Bethesda's, multiplatform games aren't usually too modding friendly.

Why and how? The 360 is selling for as little as $200 at my local Best Buy and the PS3 $300... brand new. They are getting on in years and of course they aren't as powerful as a platform that a modern PC player may spend at least $600-$1000 creating... with parts more modern by 5 1/2 or 4 1/2 years. How should a person be offended if the PC players who put the money into their platforms to be able to run more actually get more... something the 360 and the PS3 can't handle? I know this when I go shopping for my next-generation console of any generation and it doesn't offend me in the least bit... so long as my platform gets what its capable of handling, as well. My platform can't handle as much as someone's modern PC. My PC can't handle as much as someone's modern PC. It's a fact and I don't understand how anyone could be so hard-headed as to not understand it. The cheaper platform is just that... cheaper. Are there actually a large number people out there that can't comprehend how a modern, more expensive platform is more powerful than a nearly 6 or nearly 5 year old, cheaper one and get offended enough by it not to buy a game because it takes advantage of more powerful hardware?

I don't either, but for some reason people seem to like to intertwine their technology (car, house, etc.) purchases with their personal identity. Have you seen some of the epic "Mac vs. PC" battles on the internet? I mean, seriously, WHO CARES!?!? Why is it that important to you!?!?

I only take it personally when someone attacks me based on my primary platform. Whoever coined the term "dumbed-down" and irrevocably attached it to the stereotype of consoles... my boot wants to meet his/her face.