Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image | December 17, 2017

Scroll to top



Activision and PS3 Gamers |

I’ve been criticized every so often for being down on Sony and the PS3. So I thought I’d change things up a bit and talk about Activision instead. And I won’t even state my opinion. I’ll just state some facts.

Activision released Call of Duty 3 as a launch game for the PS3. It did not have headset support (unlike the 360 version), a vital component for playing team-based games. It also had a lot of problems with connecting to games. And it did not receive any downloadable content, also unlike the 360 version of the game.

Activision did not release Guitar Hero II as a PS3 launch game, even though they probably could have.

Activision gave Guitar Hero I, II, and 80’s owners no reliable way to play those games on the PS3 with the guitar controller.

Now they release Guitar Hero III. There was no demo (there could have been if they had a solution for PS2 guitars on the PS3). The PS3 guitar has an ugly dongle. Guitar Hero III does not support the Rock Band guitar. (Even though Rock Band supports the Guitar Hero guitar.) The PS3 guitar does not support PS2 GH games played on a PS3! And worst of all, according to this IGN review of Guitar Hero III: “The PS3 version doesn’t have any option to invite a friend into a game, so if you go with that version you’ll probably wind up playing with more strangers than anything else.

What the heck?

[Edit: Now comes word that 360 owners will be getting a patch to enable offline co-op quickplay. No word on a similar patch for PS3 or Wii owners.]

  • Activision, pretty much suck when it comes to their support for the PS3. Some of their omissions feels like they are sticking two fingers up to PS3 owners.

  • Rjcc

    how is it activision’s fault that the ps3 doesn’t work with the guitar hero controller?

    isn’t activision the publisher of cod4, which has “all the same features as the 360 game”?

    you decided you didn’t want to buy the console with the more robust online system and as a result you’re getting games with reduced functions, you didn’t see this coming? its not their job to justify your purchase

  • Jagjeet

    Criticise you? what the heck? I salute you for posting this and I want for you to do more. Thank you so much for poiting this out as I am very upset by the treatment PS3 is getting by developers. I hope you do one for all the companies doing this it will be evry appreciated. EA for example, stated at e3 06 they would support PS3 and that it is an amazing machine and now look what they are doing for money. Namco are porting practically all their games to 360, Ace Combat 6, Katamari, Eternal Sonata (originally exclusive) I mean these are the franchises that PS2 successful and they are totally ripping us off!

    And what about capcom? Close clover studios, a studio making fantastic games for ps2. Make Devil May Cry 4 multi plat and RE 5 which could have been exclusive. Give deadrising and lost planet EXCLUSIVELY to 360, and Monster Hunter 3 to Wii? and what do we get. Lost Planet, after a year, and it looks worse from what I have heard. Well that somes up my feelings. I reall y hope you post stuff like this all the time. Thanks man.

  • Riggins44

    This is typical of the treatment that many third party devs have given the PS3. The install base numbers are so low that in many cases the 360 is the lead platform and we get a weak port. There are countless examples…any EA game since launch, both Ubisoft shooters, Call of Duty 3. I am hoping that games like R&C, Haze and IW efforts with COD4 are the new trend. A year from now this may not be an issue (or will it always be?) as game companies gain momentum with the hardware and Sony gets more people to buy the machines. For us early adopters this limbo state is so frustrating and shit like Guitar Hero is yet another smack to Sony people.

  • If I were to get GH3 it’d be for the PS2 anyway. I’m just relieved that Sony has it’s own inhouse studios. A majority of the games I’ve bought for the PS3 are 1st party titles, i.e. R&C, HS, Folklore, Resistance…I’d get DF but I’m outta game funds for the rest of the year…

    Jagjeet, Namco has confirmed that the PS3 will be getting ES with new playable characters. And Don’t even mention Katamari. I’m glad it’s on the 360. I read someone say that you have to pay to unlock content that’s already in the game and that there’s nothing new about the game worth a purchase. Here’s the link, scroll pass the R&C review: Link.
    Hope the link isn’t too long..

    [Edit: the link.]

  • Specter

    The problem is a lot of the game publishers tend to take the heat for developers who create these games with issues ranging from development road blocks to personal bias towards a particular system. PS3 is the current victim of this.

    Some development teams create excellent PS3 titles, others do a crappy job and blame the system for their incompetence. Publishers reserve the right to gauge the final build and approve it or not. Sadly, they tend to approve crappy PS3 ports in order to either turn a quick profit or stop what they consider to be bleeding development costs.

    If Sony wants this fiasco to stop they have to create a development kit similar to what Microsoft did for their X360. This will help simplify development and allow developers and publishers to cut back on costs and actually make more games with better quality in less time.

  • Riggins44

    Specter, good point. It is easy to point fingers at the dev. teams and while they are partially responsible for putting out a lot of crap, can Sony say they have done everything they can to support the dev. on this machine? The PS2 strategy of “figure it out” is not working intially. By the time they do figure it out, how many people will have jumped ship to the 360 for the number of really good games?

  • AFAIK, Sony DOES have a devkit, and it’s a lot better than the PS2’s.

  • I put it down to lazy or inept devs. Resistance – a launch game – showed what can be done online with PS3 games. Many since have failed to put in the same effort. It has nothing to do with the “more robust online system”, as RJCC seems to think.

    Okay, so MS supply standard tools for areas where Sony don’t. There’s absolutely nothing to prevent devs from coding their own, except laziness. Devs only need to code a routine once, and they can use it in all their games, just as easily as they drop the MS items into Live games. But they choose not to.

    It also needs to be remembered that in many cases, Activision are not making these games, only publishing them. There’s a significant difference. Credit to Infinity Ward for taking the time to give PS3 CoD4 the exact same online features as the 360 version. Proof – if any were needed – that it’s the devs that make these decisions, not the networks the systems run on.

    Any developer who doesn’t take the time to make their product the best it can be doesn’t deserve our money. Which is exactly why I didn’t buy Sega’s Virtua Tennis, and won’t be buying Midway’s Blacksite.

    PSN is an open framework, which gives the devs much more scope to do things the way THEY want, rather than the way MS (or Sony) recommends. If they can’t be bothered to take advantage of that, they shouldn’t be bothering at all.

  • Darrin

    Henning, you are being negative here, but this is a very good reason to do so.

    However, this probably has less to do with Activision and more to do with the dev teams and the programmers. The publisher makes high level business decisions, while the devs tend to influence which specific features and platforms get the most attention and polish.

    rjcc, you are being a little ridiculous. Sure, the 360 has had an edge in their implementation of several online features (voice chat, messaging, friends list, achievements), but there is nothing magical about the platform that makes it inherently more “robust” as you say.

    The issues that Henning is talking about are simply due to developer preference.

  • LarryG60

    I’ve been led to understand that the xbox version of Guitar Hero III supports 1080p while the PS3 version only supports up to 720p with no scaling ability. There are a great number of people that have displays that don’t accept 720p as an input resolution. So for myself, as well as a great number of others, we would be stuck playing at 480p. I’m not about to spend 100 bucks to play Guitar Hero III at last gen resolutions.

  • Link?

  • LarryG60

    A forums thread: “We Want 1080 Support for PS3 games past and future (ReBorn)” has a list of games that do/don’t support 1080i. Guitar Hero III has been added to the list under the heading of “GAMES THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT SUPPORT 1080i/p output”. For those of us that have older displays that don’t have inputs that accept 720p are stuck playing at 480p. The link for the game list is here. If you go to here, Guitar Hero III is listed as “HDTV 1080p”. I’ve seen the both the PS3 and XBOX game case and the PS3 version is marked as 720p while the XBOX version covers all resolutions to 1080p. Guitar Hero III is not so graphically intensive that it couldn’t have been developed to run at native 1080p on either platform.

  • Thanks!

    It sucks that the PS3 version doesn’t upconvert to 1080i/p.

    On the other hand, many 360 games say 1080p on the back, when all they really mean is that the 360 will upconvert to 1080p. Whether or not it’s 1080p native is a different thing.