Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

PS3Blog.net | November 25, 2017

Scroll to top

Top

PSN
8 Comments

Haze Developer says PSN offers more freedom than Xbox Live | PS3Blog.net

There isn’t much defined by Sony how you have to do things on PSN, they leave it up to the developers. So there is always a chance for developers to under deliver, but it also gives them great freedom to do what they truly want to do. But with Xbox Live they have to conform with Microsoft’s standards and has a lot more structure and more libraries available for the developers. So each has it’s pros & cons.

As far as playing Haze online they said PSN wasn’t a issue at all. They had planned for it from the start, and they’ve be able to do it how they want it. The Haze developers said “for us as a developer – the PS3 stuff… we’ve always liked working with it.”

Haze Developer: ‘PSN Offers More Freedom Than Xbox Live’

  • MeToo

    What exactly that “Freedom” is?

    Freedom from not complying on Gamescore?
    Freedom from not complying to Achievement points?
    Freedom from using lousy servers?

    EA was given a freedom by microsoft the ability to use their own gameserver and it really sucks. Or was it ubisoft?

  • Rjcc

    This I can definitely agree with and I’d love to see more developers take advantage of it. There are things (like being able to change songs in-game without pulling up the guide) that you could do on xbox, that you can’t do in 360 games because of the standard way the feature works, and live is so restricted.

    on the flip, there’s a baseline of features for every game that’s really really nice to have, plus the universal friendslist.

    it’s unfortunate many developers aren’t going the extra mile in terms of online stuff.

  • MeToo: maybe you should read the article? πŸ˜‰

  • Darrin

    Sounds like Java vs. Microsoft’s .NET

    Java: Provides complete freedom. Can be great if you know what you’re doing but easy to get lost and confused.
    .NET: More structure and guidance. Easier to understand since one vendor provides absolutely all of the tools/technology/frameworks/libraries/runtimes that you ever use.

    PS3: Different libraries/tech/middleware from different vendors. Many choices. Complete freedom of implementation but easy to get lost.
    360: Almost all libraries/tech/middleware are from Microsoft. More structure/guidance. Less choice but more structure. More required feature sets (Achievements) give the end user a more consistent experience while limiting developer liberties.

  • MetalProxy

    Darrin I like your analogy, it seems that the 360 has to many limitations. Developers need to worry more about the game more than the goofy acheivements. Give me a new gun or different outfit or what ever not some stupid points. My two cents, lol.

  • derrickgott007

    Sony has said before that they will work hand in hand and provide all the needed software for developers to implement the proper usage of PSN in their games. The blame for bad on-line games rests completely on the shoulders of the developer.

    Case in point:

    Call of Duty 3. This game lacked pretty much everything about the PSN…Buddy lists, party systems, and headset support. What was the developers excuse? You guessed it, “We don’t know how to use the PSN nor do we know what SONY has decided on.”

    Sony offered its help from day one of PS3 development. So when games completely lack any sort of PSN intergration, its time to point the finger where it belongs, not at SONY, but at developers. And yes, I like to call them lazy developers. Some like to say “Oh but it costs money to implement chat and mic support etc in a game, because it takes longer development time.” Well that only supports what I like to call the “VICIOUS CIRCLE OF GAME CRAPTITUDE” which is where a developer cuts all sorts of corners and leaves out VITAL components of games that are INCLUDED on other systems, and then want to cry and say “There was very little interest in the PS3 version of the game.”

    Developers need to realise that people WANT certain things with online games. If its online, we want MIC SUPPORT. We want BUDDY LISTS. Include these two simple things and you will notice that sales of said game, as long as its decent, will be better. Fail to include the basic two things, and even good games fall by the wayside. So yes, take the loss that it costs to include these things, and you will see a higher return on the investment.

    Don’t half ass it, and then cry when no one buys your game. Those who don’t do that take two steps forward, NOT SO FAST EA AND UBISOFT!

  • Sporty

    I have to agree.

    Being an open system, developers can pretty much do what they want. The PC side had been like this forever. But some developers just plan suck unless their hands are held.

    This is an area that I think Sony’s first party and second party games will set the standard. Also developers that actually care about customers.

    It’s going to get harder and harder for companies like EA and Ubisoft to half ass a game’s online component and just say they didn’t have a choice when Sony games have less lag and more features.

    Since we have Gamer cards, scores and trophies around the end of the year, from the sounds of it they are optional. But when Epic, Konami and Sony games make the most out of it other will have to follow or they are basically saying screw the consumer.

    Should be no excuse for games lacking mic, chat, messaging and online multilayer today. Even a crappy game can have replay value with decent online.

  • Some of the XBox recent libraries weren’t all that great to begin with. Hopefully they will improve those, so games are easier to develop, and as a result (hopefully), to be able to have better games.