Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image | January 19, 2018

Scroll to top



Bravo EA, Bravo |

You’d think it would be in EA’s best interests to make the best possible version of NHL 08 on the PS3, wouldn’t you? Well they obviously don’t care if the PS3 version doesn’t sell as well as it could:

Now for the bad news PS3 owners. EA once again does you a huge disservice. With its first NHL title on PS3, EA has really dropped the ball visually. While the gameplay and feature set is identical to 360, the framerate is not. And while EA would like to say the PS3 version runs at 30 frames per second, that’s questionable. PlayStation editor Greg Miller put it best upon first seeing NHL 08 running on PS3: “It looks like they’re playing hockey under a strobe light.” You can still play and enjoy NHL 08 on PS3, but don’t you deserve a perfect framerate? Shouldn’t you demand a better-looking game? Write your Congressman and get EA to pay the PS3 a bit more respect. Nearly a year into its life, the PS3 should have sports games that run smoothly.

Wow, the PS3 gets the short end of the stick from a multi platform title yet again.

It would be really petty of me not to buy any EA developed games until they pull their fingers out, only thing is, the majority of their games have been disappointing, apart from SSX, SSX Tricky and SSX 3, so I haven’t bought any of their games for a long time anyway.

Keep this up and that trend won’t change anytime soon. 🙄

IGN Reviews NHL 08 on PS3

  • derrickgott007

    It is because PETER MOORE is in charge of EA SPORTS….and where did he used to work??

  • I don’t know if that’s what it is (doubtful) but whatever it is, it’s bad business sense.

  • Darrin

    Three Points

    1) IGN really exagerates the 360 advantages on this kind of thing. More details on this one later.

    2) Peter Moore, EA exec, said regarding this issue: “But that’s in the past. And beginning with NBA, we’re going to see PS3 titles from EA Sports running at 60 frames a second. So all of that’ll be forgotten by the holiday.”

    3) EA releases games with these headline grabbing PS3 deficiencies, releases far fewer games on the PS3 than any other system, has never released even a single PS3 exclusive, and then has the nerve to blame low PS3 sales for it’s financial problems.

  • In summary; EA SUCKS!

  • francois

    This is disapointing. A solid framerate with good animation really help making sports title realistic. I had high expectation for this title… I will rent it along with NHL 2k 08 before buying.

  • iFlash

    @Darrin — Have you played the NBA Live 2008 Demo? I am gonna have to say it runs at say umm 15fps. Granted its just a demo and may be different by now, but it ships in just 3 weeks.(US)

  • Emrah

    Down with EA. I wished the “skate” team didn’t have to work for EA. They probably will have to insert the following into the code:
    if(PS3==true) waitforverticalsync(2); //make ps3 run slower 😛

  • Darrin

    I don’t agree with you guys on the EA hate thing. Sure, EA has had terrible content in the past two years and their PS3 offerings are particularly bad. But, they are merely a publisher. They are only as good as the projects they fund.

    I’m dying to play Rock Band and Burnout (which are both believed to have major advantages on the PS3 version). skate looks amazing as well.

    Do I care what financial and business entities are involved with funding and selling those titles? Of course not!

    If EA puts out the content that I want, great, I will happily buy! If they put out junk I don’t want, I will look elsewhere. No need to project a personality onto the company and get emotional about it.

    iFlash, no I don’t play any sports games at all. However, when I said IGN exagerates, I’m thinking of games like F.E.A.R which I have played a lot of. Also, your point about the demo is interesting, but I still think that Peter Moore wouldn’t say what he said they don’t seriously expect to deliver a final game with a solid 60FPS on the PS3.

  • derrickgott007

    I bet Peter Moore gets kick backs from microsoft to make sure the douchebox 360 versions sell more.

  • derrickgott007

    I wouldn’t doubt if microsoft pays kickbacks to peter moore in the form of “severance pay” for douchebox 360 versions to be superior and sell more copys. Mark my words…..Microsoft eventually buys EA…….just wait and see…

  • Mike

    It has nothing to do with Peter Moore. Xbox 360 came out first and they developed their engine around that system first. They don’t care about optimizing it for PS3 any more than they care about having the Wii version be the PS2 version with gimmicky controls.

    It’s EA. This is how they always do it. Last time it benefitted Sony because their system was out first and EA never did much to take advantage of what Xbox could do. This time, it’s the other way around. The only real exceptions are going be game from the formerly independent teams like Criterion. They’re used to working hard to make games run well because they didn’t always have EA’s cash to fall back on.

  • Matt

    Derrickgott007- Are you serious? Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo would NEVER buy EA. Why? Because they would have to pay for a company that instantly loses 100’s of millions of dollars only selling to one system as compared to 3. It would be more cost effective to buy their franchises singularly. EA doesn’t really have a lot of franchises that are must own. Madden, Burnout, and what else?

    Microsoft couldn’t pay EA enough to tank games for the PS3. If they don’t sell a million copies of Madden 08 on PS3 because of the poor frame rate, that is $60 million lost. EA will end up losing millions in sales with poor reviews. Every sport title is suffering from the same problems. this is going to hurt them by millions of sales on the PS3. EA could lose hundreds of millions.

    Or they could more effort into a system that is easy for them to work on and produce top notch games (how they run anyway). I am betting they would prefer the PS3 to tank, develop more for the 360 and Wii and port crap to the PS3. If they sell a few million copies with little effort it becomes bonus money and not lost money.

    Reality is EA is struggling to create games on the PS3 within a specified time. That is more Sony’s fault for giving them poor tools.

    Without EA, the PS2 would not have one as decidedly as it did. The main reason I didn’t buy a Dreamcast was no EA support. All of my friends at the time also skipped the DC for that very reason.

    Sony needs to upstep to the plate and make sure the largest games publisher has exactly what it needs to create great games that gamers want to own.

  • Sporty

    Matt, I know your pro-MS all the way and seem to love EA. But their are a few reasons I disagree with you

    Microsoft entered into a exclusive multi-game marketing agreement with EA, Their logos appear at the end of the commercials on the games that run 60FPS.

    Microsoft made a huge deal about being twice as fast as the competition 4 months before the games went gold.

    EA said it’s due to being their first generation games on PS3, although they were the second versions of all of them. EA has already proven they care less about the customers then profit. It’s not that hard to see how this happened. Also MS has used some of the dirtiest tactics we’re ever seen.

  • derrickgott007

    Amen Sporty….Amen.

  • EA is lazy, they only do thing when they have to.

  • iFlash

    I don’t think PS3 has poor tools…I think the tools are more challenging to use sure but they just are not as cut and paste as the xna/directx environment. Saying PS3 has poor tools is like saying Linux(KDE/Knome) are poor interfaces and linux provides poor tools when compared to Windows. I think lunix provides greater freedom, customization, and open to innovations by the user while Windows has a more pre-packaged approach that its users find easier to use right away. Windows can also be replaced with OSX as well in this comment.

    I’ll go out on a limb and say most devs who love what they do for a living, enjoy coding and developing would love to learn the PS environment. Deadlines don’t allow for this and publishers push to make money within time frames. Unfortunately thats the business.

  • François

    EA Released nhl 2001 when the ps2 launched. As far as I know, the ps2 was harder to develop for at the time compared to ps3 today. For nhl08, they had the game mechanic all sorted out from the 2007 XBox version, I think they have no valid excuse of having screwed up like they seem to have.

    This reminds me the NHL games on Genesis vs. SNes. The framerate on the Genesis was way better (more enjoyable gameplay) while graphics were a bit crisper and colorful for snes.

  • Rui

    lets see how they do with fifa…

  • The impression I get from EA is that it’s making lame excuses for inept programmers.

    They say they haven’t had PS3 dev kits for long, but is that believable? They are – somehow – the worlds biggest games company, and would most likely be one of the first to receive dev kits.

    What makes it doubly shameful is that smaller companies are already getting far better results than EA. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Incognito, Activision, Evolution, Ubisoft… all have produced better results. Hell, even the PSN downloads have superior frame rates.

    With the resources that EA have, there is no excuse at all for this shoddy level of output. The only reasons are that (a) they don’t care, or (b) they’re inept. Or both – which is a distinct possibility.

    That said, the only title from EA that I’m interested in is Army of Two. If they feck that up, I’ll be mightily pissed off.

  • François

    I pickup EA NHL 2008. This games is awesome from hockey perspective. Framerate “problem” are mostly during closeup on the players when play is stop. During play, I noticed once the action freezing for a fraction of a second and then going back to normal, but it does not remove the fun of this game.

  • Matt

    Sporty, I am pro gaming. I have owned all major systems for a very long time. The 360 is the system right now. Since I am only a console gamer, they have all of the great games (right now). BioShock is one of the best games I have played in a lot of years.

    I believe the PS3 will be worth picking up at some point. The problem is the first party titles alone don’t warrant a purchase.

    When I lived in Florida I knew a manager at EA. He told me to go with the 360 and not the PS3 (I already had a 360 since it was the first next gen console on the market). I asked him why and he flat out said they are having a really hard time getting games to run. I asked why and he told me the tools Sony has given them were not easy to use compared to the 360. He did say they will get it ironed out, but they are a multi-system developer and they care more about release dates (not him but corporate).

    The thing none of you seem to understand is that it is going to take a long time to get EA, Ubisoft, and other large third party developers to create games that run as well as their 360 and PC counterparts. Those two systems programmers have been working on for years and could create great games in their sleep. An optimized PS3 game takes too much work for EA to dump more money on with a much smaller installed base.

    Think of me what you want but I started on a Magnavox Odyssey 2, then to a Colleco Vision and a Commodore 64. I would be willing to bet I have spent more on Sony game equipment than all of you. Call me a fanboy if you like. All I know is I am playing the GOTY right now and I couldn’t be happier. Shame it isn’t on the PS3 because the majority of you will only own one system. How am I a fanboy again?