PS3's Aging Hardware is Limiting Call of Duty Says Sledgehammer CEO

Man, if the PS3's hardware is limiting CoD, then I wonder what the 360 and Wii are doing to it? :P bbkkristian

Why? The PS3 is just as weak as the 360.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Man, if the PS3's hardware is limiting CoD, then I wonder what the 360 and Wii are doing to it? :P kalipekona

Why? The PS3 is just as weak as the 360.

EDIT: What did we learn today: 5+ year old consoles are limiting CoD. Maybe Activision should just stick to PC and stop complaining.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Man, if the PS3's hardware is limiting CoD, then I wonder what the 360 and Wii are doing to it? :P bbkkristian

Why? The PS3 is just as weak as the 360.

EDIT: What did we learn today: 5+ year old consoles are limiting CoD...

Well, it's true, they're all limiting CoD. It's not that I even personally like Call of Duty. That's not what this is about. We can't let our personal feelings blind us.

We may not like some of the design decisions that the developers make on CoD, but that doesn't mean that they are able to do everything they want to do on current hardware. They have decided to go for 60 fps in order to give a smoother response to the controls, but that requires cutbacks in other areas.

You want to know what's limiting Call of Duty?

A two year development cycle, yearly releases, and an engine that is twelve years old.

DarkLink77

This

That

but definitely this.

Jesus these guys have nothing to support this statement! Look at Rage, its running at 60fps and looks significantly better than any CoD and most 30fps games out there.

And the PS3's limiting hardware? They're going to knock one but not the other? No excuses, how about making a good game.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Why? The PS3 is just as weak as the 360.

kalipekona

EDIT: What did we learn today: 5+ year old consoles are limiting CoD...

Well, it's true, they're all limiting CoD. It's not that I even personally like Call of Duty. That's not what this is about. We can't let our personal feelings blind us.

We may not like some of the design decisions that the developers make on CoD, but that doesn't mean that they are able to do everything they want to do on current hardware. They have decided to go for 60 fps in order to give a smoother response to the controls, but that requires cutbacks in other areas.

You want to know what's limiting Call of Duty?

A two year development cycle, yearly releases, and an engine that is twelve years old.

DarkLink77

Amen

People referencing to BF3 forgetting that COD runs at 60 FPS on consoles while BF3 runs at 30 FPS, you can not directly compare the graphics btn the two, obviously COD has made scarifices to maintain the 60 FPS (which is wise I believe)

Limiting CoD :? Are suppose to believe that BS Sledgehammer?millerlight89

Rage looks better any COD, is 60FPS on consoles, has bigger worlds and is on id-tech 5, what's the excuse?

Ummm, isn't the Xbox 360 a year older? If aging hardware is to blame, shouldn't both be the scapegoat?

Well they are always aiming at a fluid 60 frames per secong gameplay. Besides these consoles are ancient and that's a fact.

To the people mentioning RAGE - Do you think anyone at Sledgehammer or hell, Activision as a whole, can be in the same league with John Carmack wen it comes to programming skills?

Well sure its possible to make a 60FPS first person shooter with visuals far greater than CoD on consoles, but its also 'possible' to solve the equation of the universe. Doesn't mean anyone can do it.

For those saying RAGE you have to consider that game has been indevelopment since the start of the gen, and well its almost over now. Once the new system come out you are likely to see a new engine from them.

Hmm... Xbox 360 doesn't have an aging hardware?

Hmm... Xbox 360 doesn't have an aging hardware?

Khoo1992

Probably meant both, but only named the PS3 for some reason. I think the next engine they will use will be the Cryengine 3, on the next gen consoles at least.

People referencing to BF3 forgetting that COD runs at 60 FPS on consoles while BF3 runs at 30 FPS, you can not directly compare the graphics btn the two, obviously COD has made scarifices to maintain the 60 FPS (which is wise I believe)

ethanradd

Except the sacrifices they make are losing graphics, effects, quality sound, physics, and anything everything else that current gen games come standard with.

You can't boil that all down to just the framerate. The engine is older than some people on this forum.

wow this is gold, so they are blaming the consoles now? rofl

[QUOTE="Khoo1992"]

Hmm... Xbox 360 doesn't have an aging hardware?

GTSaiyanjin2

Probably meant both, but only named the PS3 for some reason. I think the next engine they will use will be the Cryengine 3, on the next gen consoles at least.

I think prpbably due to their contract with MS

I know something thats aging much faster. COD. ;)

Whats his excuse for the weak animations and sound fx? BF 3 proves the PS 3 is capable of much better than what we see in COD.

the ceo is forgetting that consoles are not computers.... you can't just open it up and upgrade the graphic card, add more rams, new motherboard, and faster cpu. he doesn't realize that computers exist in this world for a reason/opportunity to push their game but instead they rather put the blame on a console. It's like a parent with a bully son. They'd rather blame other kids for how their son turned out but doesn't want to correct the problem or take the blame for it. COD turned out that way because their engine have reach its limit. WHy won't they try cranking the graphic to Crysis level then talk sh*t later. too bad the graphic and gameplay will look and feel almost identical between the pc and console. This is just all nonsense talk by the CEO or the father of the company. If he wants a PS4 or xbox720 just say so instead of wishing for something magical to happen.

[QUOTE="ethanradd"]

People referencing to BF3 forgetting that COD runs at 60 FPS on consoles while BF3 runs at 30 FPS, you can not directly compare the graphics btn the two, obviously COD has made scarifices to maintain the 60 FPS (which is wise I believe)

Pug-Nasty

Except the sacrifices they make are losing graphics, effects, quality sound, physics, and anything everything else that current gen games come standard with.

You can't boil that all down to just the framerate. The engine is older than some people on this forum.

So an extra tank makes up for crappy mindless gameplay? Lol, and the ps3 has better hardware than the 360, they are just too stupid or too paid off to develop it on a blu ray. Ditch the 7gb 360 format and go with a 50gb blu ray you fake liar.Stevelovessony

Hmm... Xbox 360 doesn't have an aging hardware?

Khoo1992

Per clock, Xbox 360's PPE CPU about same level as Intel Atom/ARM Cortex A8 level CPU or PowerPC G2 type core (with kitbash VMX128 ).

It's backwards compared to PowerPC G5/970FX.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Meanwhile at EA.

Crysis 2.....

Battlefield 3......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMuqCeDH6F0

Are they serious?

Don't Crysis 2 and BF3 run at 30fps on consoles (Crysis 2 often less than that)?

One major reason theres more than likely problems with the PS3 developement is your hideously ancient engine that isnt designed for this generation and that architecture of course theres gonna be problems.

Its your ideology of sticking to that behemoth that makes it harder than it should be.Switch to UE 3 im pretty sure it wouldnt be hard to get the gameplay over and still look better and be much more optimized for each platform.

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

They say this, yet they clearly aim for the lowest common denominator -- they even keep pumping out Wii versions of the game.

jonathant5

I don't deny that the PS3/360 are limiting games, but in this particular case those systems are not the weak link here.

I just really don't understand PS3 fans. The PS3 is an outdated piece of hardware, why is it hard to accept this?

This blind fanboysim is getting ridiculousness. What would you do if SONY didn't release a new console for the next 10 years? Keep bad mouthing devs for being "lazy" & not understand the fact your console is outdated?

You know what I'm curous about is which CoD game Sledgehammer are referring to. Everyone here is jumping on them for these statements assuming that they are talking about either MW3 or another cut and past first person game in the series yet to be released. If that is true then I would agree with everyone's disdain. However wasn't Sledgehammer supposed to be working on a brand new third person CoD game before some of their resources got relocated to finishing MW3? Maybe what this guy is specifically talking about is that new game. If so then we know nothing about it. Such as the engine it's using, the tech behind it, or the scope of what the game plans to offer. I'm just riffing out loud, but according to the OP there was never a mention of a specific CoD title. So, who knows?

I guess people would rather they make a whole new engine because of the hardware restrictions of the PS3/360. The only FPS on consoles running at 60 FPS on consoles with some what decent graphics is RAGE. And I for one would like having some games to play during the gen, than wait the entire gen for the devs to work around the hardware restrictions of the consoles. And yeah Sledgehammer was working on a new COD game that was going to use a new engine, but I guess that may have been out on hold for now.

lol who is sledgehammer?

The PS3 is holding back Call of Duty, I mean the PS3 has hit it's peak, Uncharted 3 is as good as it's going to get, but the 360 keeps improving, Forza 4, Gears 3 and The Witcher 2 which is only possible on 360

They should make Call of Duty 360 exclusive

lol who is sledgehammer?

def_mode

http://kotaku.com/5406932/activision-announces-sledgehammer-games-new-home-to-ex+dead-space-leads

Where did he single out the PS3?

All consoles are outdated

Period

Where did he single out the PS3?

GD1551

MS paid for mapacks exclusivity for a moth through til 2012 im sure..so yup.

It sounds like he's using the PS3 as an example rather than to single it out. It sounds like he's just saying consoles are getting out of date now.

Even on PC COD looks average at best.

HArdware is not to blame here (for once).

OK, following the logic of this topic/post, why does it also suck on the 360 too?

You want to know what's limiting Call of Duty?

A two year development cycle, yearly releases, and an engine that is twelve years old.

DarkLink77

Current consoles are getting old, obviously, but i agree with this. Want to include 10 new enemy types? Then give it another year...

OK, following the logic of this topic/post, why does it also suck on the 360 too?

TheBatFreak777

He does have a point, old hrdware always limits the devs, but I'm pretty sure they could do more with a better engine and more optimizing of their code

Whats his excuse for the weak animations and sound fx? BF 3 proves the PS 3 is capable of much better than what we see in COD.

Cranler

that statements is like saying "we could develop something more, but its the consoles fault, is not like we are a lazy mofos rehashing a game". Excuses imo

I just really don't understand PS3 fans. The PS3 is an outdated piece of hardware, why is it hard to accept this?

This blind fanboysim is getting ridiculousness. What would you do if SONY didn't release a new console for the next 10 years? Keep bad mouthing devs for being "lazy" & not understand the fact your console is outdated?

Mystery_Writer

And Xbox fans can accept their console is outdated? Every fanboy will defend their consoles is the best no matter what is the circumstances.

The problem is with this news is that it seems that CoD devs are constantly complaining the PS3. First with their boss Bobby Kotick threatened to stop supporting the PS3, which is IMO is ridiculous. Then, you hear that they say it's difficult to implement CoD Elite into PS3 and now this.

I'm sorry. If you said you have trouble develop COD for PS3, then stop making it on the PS3! It's simple, it will save cost and energy.