60fps Xbox 360, 30fps Sony PS3 for Madden NFL and NCAA Football 08
July 1, 2007 By Daniel
Filed under Gaming, Sony Playstation 3, Xbox 360
Microsoft Xbox 360 owners are going to love this news as NCAA Football 08 and Madden NFL 08 will be running at 60 frames per second on the Microsoft Xbox 360, while the Sony PS3 will run at just 30fps.
While the debate will go on forever on which is the best console for graphics (the Sony Playstation 3 or the Xbox 360), but in this battle it looks like the 360 has won.
Loyal Playstation owners I guess will feel very frustrated over these frames per second limitations as the PS3 is meant to be the better machine with specs clearly pointing to that.
The PS3 is capable of creating stunning graphics but it seems that game developers are cutting corners when creating games for the Sony PS3.
So when do you think developers will start giving Playstation 3 games the resources they need to create game experiences PS3 fans deserve?
Source
Get the latest news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or follow us on Twitter.
This game suck! So i dont care if the game runs only 10fps. Im not going to buy it.
microsoft must have paid a lot of money….to get 30fps on the ps3 and 60 fps on the 360 cuz now its a properly known fact that the ps3 have far more advanced hardware(reliable too)than the rushed in 360……check out this youtube vid of GDC07 . these are the kind of physics the ps3 can handle and no other can…..wait till 2008 or actually end 2007. all developers are gonna jump back to the ps3 ship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xz9u03AZY
This fame rate my make no noticable difference to how the game looks or plays.
BTW is the 360 version running at true 1080p 60fps like NBA08 is on the PS3?
Where did you hear this? This is a serious problem!! I’ve got ps3 and have been looking towards all the hype for months, and then to pull out this crap only 3 weeks out?
That physics video was lame, just another “hype-machine” that Sony uses to sway their fanzombies. With no input, environment/bump mapping, backgrounds or any other processing going on, a fairly inexpensive computer can run that demo - weak!
I got sick of Sony’s over-hyping and under-delivering back with the PS2. I clearly remember an executive stating that the PS2 would be ” 10,000 times more powerful than the Dreamcast”….. it was barely .5 time more powerful.
Sony really needs to spend less money on marketing BS and more money on showing devs how to tap this “hidden potential” that we all keep hearing about. People just want to play games, unless you’re a fanzombie - then it seems you want to only try to rationalize your less than wise PS3 purchase. Given the PS3’s inferior architecture (non-unified memory and missing the Xbox’s bad ass frame buffer) and inferior GPU, I seriously doubt Sony can deliver on their claims that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox. The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. Don’t get me wrong, I hope they totally prove me wrong - if they do, I’ll be more than happy to shell out for a PS3. Then all they’d need to do is fix the PSN.
Game on gamers! (However, I have a feeling its going to be “flame on” since a lot of the fanzombies don’t have games to play)
im no “fanzombie”. I am dissapointed that they are going with the 30 frame crap. I have both systems, and the truth is they are comparable, no need for this 30 to 60 frame diff. tell ya though, my ps3 hasnt crashed yet since launch, but since launch for my 360 I am now waiting for my 5TH repair/replacement all done through warranty, but that leaves me a lot of time to play my ps3 while im always waiting for m$ to get it right. about a 20 to 30 percent return rate for repairs, at least in my province.
MS didn’t pay anything for this, lol. It’s sony’s fault for making a machine that is harder to develop for.
this means nothing. ea makes the game for the 360, then ports it to ps3. thats the reason why. its the same reason the res on thp8 was 600something on ps3 instead of 720. if they made two versions of the game separatly, they would be dead even at the least.
By now you would think that the arguements about which system was better would have come to an end. The PS3 has simply been dominated by the XBOX 360 from day 1. Say what you want about the hardware but it doesn’t mean a thing when it is difficult, time consuming and expensive to develop for which system will companies rather make games for? There is not one advantage that Sony can truly claim to have with the PS3. Lets count the many that Microsoft can brag about with the 360:
1. Easy development of games for the people that make the games
2. Ability for the games to be designed to go cross platform and work on PC’s. (eventually will also include cell phones and handhelds)
3. Online community that is so much better then Sony’s that comparing the two here is ridiculous.
4. Upcoming IPTV programming
5. 3 times as many systems sold
These all add up to more profits for the developers to make great games for XBOX 360 and PC, while pushing out whatever they have time for on the PS3.
Face it, Sony blew it bad in all aspects and Microsoft gave them a taste of their own medicine by being the first to market and winning the love of all the major developers whose jobs are now easier because of Microsoft. This debate is officially over so don’t even write any half ass responses to this!
I can’t believe someone would accuse EA of taking money to cripple the framerate of a PS3 game - that’s just stupid and EA would NEVER do that.
The problem is two-fold:
#1 - the graphics processor on the PS3 is a fantastic processor, but in some things it’s just not quite on-par with the amazing graphics processor in the 360. When people compare the specs of the systems, they always tend to look at the CPU instead of the GPU. The CPU of the PS3 is amazing at floating point processing, even if it is harder to program for (and speaking as a programmer it would be WAY harder to code for SPUs instead of conventional CPU code). On PCs, you’ll notice that the main difference in FPS numbers come from the graphics card (GPU) these days, not the CPU. Sony knows that their graphics card is not quite as powerful as the Xenon in the 360, so they emphasize the processor even though it’s not what really affects FPS as much as the GPU (the CPU will affect things like AI and physics engines).
#2 - Microsoft’s development tools are simply the best. The reason is simple - they’re the same development tools Windows programmers use (not just game programmers) so they have a huge incentive to spend tons of money on their development tools. Sony has traditionally found that developers write their own customized assembly code for Sony hardware so they don’t invest much in the development tools and libraries since they think developers are going to write their own libraries and use their own tools. Unfortunately this means the ramp-up time on great games is 2-3 years for Sony systems. We’re just about to the 2 year point on how long developers have had their Sony dev kits, so over the next 3-6 months we should finally start seeing some good games for the system if it plays out the way the PS2 did.
What will be interesting is to see if Sony can keep up interest in their system with a relatively small number of truly next-gen games in their arsenal. Yes, they have Lair, Heavenly Sword and MGS as exclusives, but 360 has Mass Effect, BioShock and Halo3 at the same time which are all MUCH more impressive than the PS3 side.
It will be interesting to see what E3 will hold for both camps…
I am one of the millions who have not purchased a next-gen system yet. Still waiting for price points to go lower. But I must say…as I read industry news, blogs, gaming sites….one thing is very clear. The PS3 is in serious trouble. It is ashamed that developers are not devoting their best efforts to this machine because the installed base simply is not there. It is sad that Sony is not providing more resources to developers to address this problem. The only good thing that I as a consumer can see is because the PS3 is underperforming - the price will come down sooner than later. The price cut of the PS3 will prompt a price reduction of the xbox360. That is when I and a great many people like me will join the next-generation.
Now, although that sounds like a happy ending. It really isn’t. The business model for the gaming industry is in serious trouble. Sony is really bleeding money, the wii, while innovative in control, is severely lacking in graphical punch, and the 360- while currently holding 2nd behind the wii (in the U.S) has a real issue with hardware quality…which eventually will need to be addressed.
Yes because the Xbox couldn’t possibly be better at anything when it’s against the all mighty PS3… oh wait.. I mean…
“Porting games” isn’t the problem at all. The original article at 1up.com stats that All Pro 2k8 was built from the ground up on PS3 and X360 but runs at 30fps on the PS3 vs the X360’s 60fps. It’s not a porting issue, it seems to be a PS3 limitation - at least with football games.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160709
“Loyal Playstation owners I guess will feel very frustrated over these frames per second limitations as the PS3 is meant to be the better machine with specs clearly pointing to that.
The PS3 is capable of creating stunning graphics but it seems that game developers are cutting corners when creating games for the Sony PS3.” - the article
This should not have been posted. It’s false plain and simple. The ps3 is NOT meant to be the better machine. It is meant to be the blu-ray trojan horse. You obviously haven’t read the specs because the specs say the ps3 is inferior for games. The gpu is what matters most in todays games and the 360 has the better gpu. Also what corners are devs cutting exactly? Seems you want to shift the blame off of the ps3’s bad design and put it onto the developers. Leave the dev’s alone, they are over worked and under paid.
Anybody that has a fair share of computer hardware knowledge will agree with me.
The PS3 is harder to program for because its CPU is actually a collection of multiple (9 I think) smaller processing units controlled/regulated by a central processing unit.
A lot of developers have said although the PS3 does have greater theoretical power than the Xbox 360, the time required to create graphically superior games requires so much work that developers can’t turn a profit.
If the PS3 gets an installed base over 30-40 million, then game developers can spend more time working with the difficult PS3
Your eye can only see 29.9 fps, so what point having 60 or even 280 fps like my Sgi Octane can pull. Developer are getting lazy, pay suck and hours are long. Who want to put $$$$$$$ into PS3 porting. I wouldn’t myself even so I only own PS3 and stay loyal to sony name. Hey better than not having games at all.. Give it time, when my Quad SLI 7950GX2 start to lag on games, then PS3 will shine and we will see other next gen console from MS and Nintendo in few year trying to keep up with games and PS3. Sony PS3 got 7+ years before it get to point were we need to update it…
It very powerful pic of hardware in gaming and outside of it..
Fox
lets look at what it says from Elec Arts— “As you can see, every company making a football game this year made a decision that the best experience for the Xbox 360 included 60fps whereas the best experience for the PS3 was 30fps.”
The ps3 is running 30fps because it ideal. the 360 runs in 60 fps because it ideal.
2 Questions—
Q:is the ps3 computer incapable of running 60fps? (dumb question)
A: NO. It could run a football game at over 350fps if need be.
Q:why is 60fps ideal for 360 computer?
A:360 MUST run the game at 60 fps in order to achieve a smooth 1080p resolution. there are too many variables in a football videogame for the 360 computer to handle for it to run 1080p @ 30 fps. 30fps on a 360 would be unplayable with the amount of variables on the football field.
even beyond the cpu -remember— half the amount of information is leaving the standard dvd disc whether it be a movie or a videogame. not only is less info being read but what most people do not factor in is the space the laser has to travel to get to the next bit of information. it adds up.
It makes perfect sense why 360 runs a football game @ 60f.Elec arts had no choice but to move 360 up to 60 fps. football would not run smooth otherwise.i’m sure they originally had the game set at a global rate of 30fps. then after seeing that the 360 computer could not run a smooth 1080p @ 30fps they changed it to 60fps. they obviously didn’t have a global rate set @ 60fps. if that were the case, it would have just stayed at 60fps for both computers- end of story.
Lol!!! Superdynamite came up with the biggest fairy tale I’ve heard this week!!! hahaahahahaha WTF
You’re parodying playstation fans right? I hope so or that was the saddest excuse I’ve also heard this week.
Simple fact is, 360 can push 60fps in madden, ps3 can’t. End of story.
Game developers are cutting corners with the PS3 because they are going to sell less of them because no one owns the thing. Sony shot themselves in the foot with this machine.
I have a 360 (one of the first off the shelf) and so far it hasn’t broke. I have spent the last year away, so haven’t use the machine for a year. Do I still qualify for a replacement from Microsoft when it brakes? If not I will be moving to the PS3 once the 360 does brakedown.
I think you’ll find this has everything to do with EA’s policy of “As long as we can sell it, just get it out of the door.”
I have no doubt that with a little effort the PS3 version would match perhaps even outperform the 360 version. But that’s not what EA are about.
Superdynamite, shut up! WTF?! YOU’RE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL MORON! I own PS3, XBox360 and the Wii:). I have the cash to burn, so I could care less about how this or that money got wasted. I gotta tell you, the PS3 is a great piece of art. It just sits there and gathers dust and looks all cool. It compliments my 52″ Aquos 1080p x 1920 HDTV from Sharp quite nicely.
I do believe developers are cutting corners because they’re waiting for the installed base on the PS3 to increase to a level that justifies their investment; makes PERFECT business sense. Until Sony gets a larger installed base than the Xbox 360, these nonsensities will continue, plain and simple.
I can play the Wii with my twins (7 years old) and even with my wife. Sony is more interested in pushing blu-ray than in pushing a game machine, plain and simple; the plan is somewhat working as blu-ray is currently ahead of hd-dvd.
I’m not a big fan of microsoft, but I love my xbox360. I don’t want any one console to win out. I want all three to be neck-and-neck to stimulate competition, afterall we live in a beautiful capitalist society (down with communism!).
ummm no, the ps3 version can not match or exceed the 360 version due to hardware inefficiencies. Refute or quit posting.
Ahh I find that more people are just lazy all around. EA need new game developers, too much time making money and not playing games. Hey it not super hard to make a game and play it, I been doing it since 486sx days. Nothing super cool, but it works. Check out my biggest one that I started back in 1999, which is now dieing because of SL.
http://www.furcadia.com
Fox
actually madden runs at 60 fps on the ps3, its the other one that is 30 fps, so i’ve just mooted the entire article and all the fanboy rants above this post, feel like stupid morons now xbots?
paul, i’ll refute, the ps3 is more powerful, if you cant see this then you are blind, lets run it down:
360: 512mb gpu
ps3: 256+256mb gpu
ITS SPLIT FOR MORE EFFECIENT PROGRAMMING YOU MORON, AND DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HOW THE CELL MOPS THE FLOOR WITH 360′S CPU, AND DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CELL CAN ALSO RUN GRAPHICS? NO YOU DIDN’T BECAUSE YOUR A FANBOY, LOOK UP LAIR AND YOU’LL SEE, ALL THE OCEANS AND LANDSCAPE IS BEING RUN BY CELL IN REAL TIME, 360′S CPU COULD NOT HANDLE THAT KIND OF COMPUTATIONAL POWER, GOD PAUL JUST GIVE UP
Paul, if you are saying you think the 360 as powerful as the PS3 you may as well have the word ‘RETARD’ tattooed on your head. The cell processor is used for graphics in the PS3 as well as the GPU.
BTW Madden ‘08 is running at 60 fps on the PS3 despite what all the dipshit 360 fanboys claim.
the human eye can only register 24 fps, any more is sugar coating
ya’ll PS3 faggots are just mad because you overpaid on a “gaming console”. We all know the real winner here is the 360, PS3 rushed the cell processor and now it’s too hard to make games on it. sony should just make stereos…. nothing else
ahh ~laugh hard in his chair~ 360 fan boys have lost it… There people making $$$$$$ way more than we all make buying games. Saying Cell cpu is best around. IBM with is $$$ billion company putting cell into there main stream system. Really cell is just overkill IBM Power PC, which was used heavy in apple computer, hardware base raid, TC hardware. Which make crazy 280 million year. That blows Intel and AMD out of the water. Lot of PDA use IBM cpu, I’m Mips fan they always been my fav, but Sun make better hardware. Then if you can’t game on UNIX box, AMD my choice.
Xbox 360 use IBM Power PC, same with Cell, but Cell had more company working on it and lot more money put into it, so it make it better. Sum it up the tri core 360 is node base which hardware come from Cell, soo really make it really crazy 360 is poor mans PS3…
AHhh
Fox
IF you want I can get into laptop for ya, think Dell and Hp make there own stuff? Yea right, buy Clevo best laptop in world…
Factor with in hardware sales come from lot of thing, Sun always had lead in that, but Sgi failed because hardware cost was too much!
Sony did the right thing lowing price on PS3, if they didn’t PS3 would end up like Sgi. With 30 to 60 fps, gaming must have cap limit to play, or everything would just go to fast!!! They cap it at 30 because anymore is wast of CPU time. So yea bitching about things only people making $$$$$$ understand. For me just fan of computer world been working with it back in 8082 days 2mhz was lot back then.
Fox
I think Starfoxace and superdynamite are the same person lol. Anything over 30fps is waste of cpu time? I’m sorry but the low frames on both machines are due to graphics…which are run by graphics cards. NOT the cpu. The cpu runs AI/physics/sound processing/some vertex processing/a little more stuff. The GPU is the limiting factor in both consoles and the 360 has the better one. Bottom line. One day the ps3 might have some awesome playing games with advanced AI and physics or whatever but the graphics will most likely always be a step behind. A very small step I will admit but it’s noticeable in some games. It really should come down to game preference but I gotta admit this also, 60 fps is a hella lot more smooth gameplay compared to 30 fps. Just feels more “crisp”.
I think paul is the only one here that knows what they’re talking about
lets look at what it says from Elec Arts— “As you can see, every company making a football game this year made a decision that the best experience for the Xbox 360 included 60fps whereas the best experience for the PS3 was 30fps.”
The ps3 is running 30fps because it ideal. the 360 runs in 60 fps because it ideal.
2 Questions—
Q:is the ps3 computer incapable of running 60fps? (dumb question)
A: NO. It could run a football game at over 350fps if need be.
Q:why is 60fps ideal for 360 computer?
A:360 MUST run the game at 60 fps in order to achieve a smooth 1080p resolution. there are too many variables in a football videogame for the 360 computer to handle for it to run 1080p @ 30 fps. 30fps on a 360 would be unplayable with the amount of variables on the football field.
even beyond the cpu -remember— half the amount of information is leaving the standard dvd disc whether it be a movie or a videogame. not only is less info being read but what most people do not factor in is the space the laser has to travel to get to the next bit of information. it adds up.
It makes perfect sense why 360 runs a football game @ 60f.Elec arts had no choice but to move 360 up to 60 fps. football would not run smooth otherwise.i’m sure they originally had the game set at a global rate of 30fps. then after seeing that the 360 computer could not run a smooth 1080p @ 30fps they changed it to 60fps. they obviously didn’t have a global rate set @ 60fps. if that were the case, it would have just stayed at 60fps for both computers- end of story.